Back
Child's Right To Prevails Over Unchallenged Earlier DNA Report: Andhra Pradesh High Court
In a significant ruling upholding the welfare and identity rights of a minor child, the has set aside a trial court order that had refused a fresh DNA test, holding that a child's right to recognition of paternity cannot be foreclosed merely because an earlier DNA report obtained in separate criminal proceedings remained unchallenged. The judgment was delivered by Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa on , in a petition filed under .
A Mother's Struggle for Her Daughter's Identity
The case originated from a maintenance petition (M.C. No. 48 of 2008) filed before the , by Gudala Lovalakshmi and her minor daughter Marthi Swarooparani , then aged 14 years. The mother claimed that Respondent No. 1, Marthi Ramanababu Bujji , was her husband and the biological father of her daughter, and accordingly sought maintenance for both. The respondent categorically denied both the marital relationship and the paternity of the child.
During earlier criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 1123 of 2008, a DNA test had been conducted, and the report reportedly excluded the respondent as the biological father. Relying on that report, the respondent opposed the maintenance claim. The mother and daughter, however, consistently questioned the genuineness and reliability of that report, alleging it was procured under circumstances giving rise to serious doubts about its authenticity. They sought a fresh, independent DNA examination by a reputed to conclusively resolve the paternity dispute. The trial court dismissed their application, prompting the present petition before the High Court.
The Competing Contentions
For the Petitioners: Counsel argued that the impugned order dismissing the application for a fresh DNA test was legally unsustainable and had resulted in a grave . It was contended that the earlier DNA report could not be treated as conclusive, as the petitioners had no opportunity to challenge procedural irregularities in the criminal proceedings. The mother, described as an illiterate and vulnerable woman, was unable to take timely legal steps, and her criminal appeal against the respondent's acquittal was dismissed after she could not pursue it during the COVID-19 pandemic. The refusal to order a fresh DNA test, it was submitted, caused serious prejudice to the child, whose legitimacy and social standing were directly affected.
For the Respondent: Counsel , appointed by the Court to assist since the respondent did not appear despite notice, submitted that the plea for a fresh DNA test was misconceived and amounted to an . The earlier test had been conducted under , and the petitioners had adequate opportunity to raise objections but failed to do so. Permitting repeated tests, it was argued, would lead to endless litigation and infringe upon the respondent's right to privacy, besides offending the principle of . The dismissal of the criminal appeal had attained finality and could not be indirectly challenged.
Balancing Finality Against a Child's
Justice Pratapa, after examining the rival submissions in detail, framed the core question:
"Whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting the request for a fresh DNA test?"
In answering this, the Court drew heavily on the principles enunciated by the
in recent decisions, particularly
Chaturbhuj Pradhan vs. Amar Pradhan
(2026 SCC OnLine SC 994), which itself synthesised the law from
Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia
(2024) 7 SCC 773 and
Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph
(2025 SCC OnLine SC 175).
The High Court observed that when a court is confronted with the question of ordering a DNA test, the test to be satisfied is twofold: whether the result of the DNA test is directly in issue, and whether any other evidence on record can substitute for the answer that may be arrived at through this scientific process. Equally important is the assessment of whether ordering the test is in the .
Key Observations from the Bench
The judgment is studded with observations that place the at the centre of the legal inquiry:
"The consequences of a finding regarding paternity extend far beyond the criminal case. Such determination bears directly upon the child's , identity, status and future welfare. A child cannot be made to suffer on account of procedural lapses, omissions, or inability of a parent to effectively pursue remedies."
On the trial court's narrow approach, the Court remarked:
"The trial Court appears to have proceeded on the premise that the existence of the earlier DNA report completely barred any further scientific examination. Such an approach, in the considered opinion of this Court, is too narrow in the peculiar facts of the present case."
And crucially, on the balance of interests:
"The request is not for a but for obtaining the available on an issue involving the identity and welfare of Petitioner No. 2."
Precedents Distinguished, Not Followed
The Court carefully distinguished three precedents heavily relied upon by the respondent. In Goutam Kundu vs. State of West Bengal (1993 CrLJ 3233), the Supreme Court had cautioned against ordering blood tests routinely; however, Justice Pratapa noted that the present case was not one where a party sought to disown paternity—rather, the petitioners themselves sought the test to establish paternity and secure maintenance rights. The request could not be characterized as a .
Similarly, and , where second DNA tests were denied, were distinguished on the ground that the present petitioners had raised specific, substantive doubts about the authenticity of the earlier report and had sought examination by an independent —facts absent in those cases.
Conversely, the High Court found strong support in its own earlier decision in Nakka Raja Babu vs. Nakka Prasanna (2023(5) ALD 39), where a fresh DNA test was directed despite an earlier report obtained during criminal proceedings, precisely because the rights and interests of the child demanded it.
The Verdict and Its Implications
Allowing the Criminal Petition, the High Court set aside the trial court's order dated , and directed the trial judge to refer the parties for DNA profiling to an appropriate authority, complete the process, and dispose of the matter expeditiously—preferably within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
The ruling reinforces a crucial legal principle: the rights of a child to identity, maintenance, and social recognition are not extinguished by procedural lapses or the finality of an earlier report obtained in proceedings where the child was not in a position to independently protect her interests. It signals that courts must adopt a liberal approach in permitting the best available scientific evidence when a child's welfare hangs in the balance.
For the 14-year-old girl at the heart of this case, the judgment opens a long-awaited door to have the fundamental question of her paternity answered conclusively—not by a contested, years-old report, but by a fresh, independent, and judicially supervised scientific examination.
