DNA Test Can't Be A Shortcut To Prove Infidelity; Inordinate Delay & Lack Of Prima Facie Case Fatal To Paternity Challenge: Madras High Court - 2025-10-04

Madras High Court Rejects Husband's Belated Plea for DNA Test, Citing Delay and Child's Dignity

MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed a man's plea for a DNA test to challenge the paternity of his child, holding that such tests cannot be ordered routinely or as a "shortcut" to prove alleged infidelity, especially after an inordinate and unexplained delay. Justice Shamim Ahmed underscored that the strong legal presumption of a child's legitimacy cannot be displaced by vague allegations without a strong prima facie case.

The court observed that the petitioner's request, filed 12 years after divorce, appeared to be a tactic to "humiliate his wife and to protract the maintenance case."

Case Background

The case involved a criminal revision petition filed by Kandhasamy against an order of the Judicial Magistrate, Palani. The petitioner and his wife, Magudeeshwari, were married in 2007, had a daughter in 2009, and obtained a divorce by mutual consent in 2012.

In 2021, the wife filed a maintenance petition for herself and the child. Four years later, in 2025, the husband filed an application seeking a DNA test, claiming he was not the child's biological father. The Magistrate's Court dismissed this application, prompting the husband to approach the High Court.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's counsel argued that the DNA test was essential to uncover the truth, alleging the wife's "inappropriate behavior" and claiming she had previously acknowledged he was not the father during their divorce proceedings.

The respondent's counsel opposed the plea, and the High Court examined the matter based on legal principles and precedent.

Legal Principles and Court's Reasoning

Justice Shamim Ahmed's judgment was rooted in established legal doctrines, primarily the presumption of legitimacy and the right to privacy.

• Inordinate and Unexplained Delay: The court heavily criticised the petitioner for his prolonged silence. It noted, "The revision petitioner should have approached the court at the initial stage... The significant delay of over 12 years from the date of the divorce order and 3 years from the filing of the maintenance case remains unexplained... His complete silence for the said period only raises further doubts on the genuineness of claim."

• Presumption of Legitimacy under Section 116: The court highlighted Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which establishes a conclusive proof of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage. The only way to rebut this presumption is by proving "non-access" between the parties at the time of conception. The court found that the petitioner had failed to place any material to establish non-access.

• DNA Tests Cannot Be Ordered Routinely: Citing landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B. and Aparna Ajinkya Firodia Vs. Ajinkya Arun Firodia , the High Court reiterated that courts must be cautious in ordering DNA tests. > "The DNA Testing cannot be used as a short cut method to establish infidelity that might have occurred over a decade ago... The question whether a DNA Test should be permitted on the child is to be analysed through the prism of the child and not through the prism of the parents. The child cannot be used as a pawn to show that the mother of the child was living in adultery."

• Infringement of Privacy and Dignity: The judgment emphasized that compelling a child to undergo a DNA test is an intrusive act that violates the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Such an order can have far-reaching and adverse effects on the child's dignity and identity.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court found no merit in the revision petition, concluding that the petitioner had failed to establish a prima facie case. The court affirmed the trial court's order, stating it was a "reasoned and speaking order."

The final order read:

"This Court is of the firm view that the Revision Petitioner has not made out any sufficient cause or legal justification to allow the prayer... The delay in filing, failure to prove non-access and the legal presumption under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, all weigh heavily against the Revision Petitioner."

The judgment serves as a strong reminder that while scientific evidence like DNA tests are valuable, they cannot be weaponized in matrimonial disputes to harass parties or brand a child with illegitimacy without substantial and timely evidence.