Covering Law & Justice.

Allahabad High Court Rejects Husband’s Plea for Child’s DNA Test, Upholds Presumption of Legitimacy and Right to Privacy

ALLAHABAD: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband seeking a DNA test to determine the paternity of his child, reinforcing the strong legal presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage. Justice Chawan Prakash, presiding over the bench, held that an order for a DNA test cannot be made in a routine manner and that such an intrusion into privacy must be justified by substantial proof of non-access between the spouses.

The court upheld the concurrent findings of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi, both of whom had previously rejected the husband's application.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a domestic violence application filed by the wife, Savita Patel, against her husband, Ramraj Patel, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Ramraj Patel and Savita Patel were married on April 15, 2008.

During the proceedings, the husband, Ramraj Patel, moved an application challenging the paternity of their daughter, Priyambada, who was born on December 17, 2012. He requested the court to order a DNA test to verify if he was the biological father. This application was dismissed by the trial court on January 18, 2021, a decision that was subsequently upheld by the appellate court on October 7, 2021, leading to the present revision petition before the High Court.

Arguments from Both Sides

Counsel for the Revisionist (Husband): The husband’s counsel argued that the couple did not live together continuously after the marriage. He claimed that his wife, being more educated (B.A., B.P.Ed.) and employed as a teacher, looked down on him for being a "High School" educated "illiterate villager." It was contended that the wife last visited his house on May 20, 2011, and had been living at her parental home since then. Based on this alleged lack of cohabitation, he argued that he could not be the father of the child born in December 2012 and that a DNA test was necessary to establish the truth.

Counsel for the Respondent (Wife) and the State: The wife's counsel vehemently opposed the plea, arguing that the lower courts' orders were legally sound. They relied on Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act , which establishes a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage. They maintained that the husband had failed to provide any concrete evidence to show "non-access" during the period when the child could have been conceived.

Court's Legal Analysis and Precedents

Justice Chawan Prakash centered the court's reasoning on the robust legal framework provided by Section 112 of the Evidence Act and the fundamental right to privacy.

Presumption of Legitimacy under Section 112 : The court underscored that Section 112 creates a "conclusive proof" of legitimacy, a powerful legal presumption designed to protect children from the stigma of illegitimacy and to preserve the sanctity of family life. The judgment states:

> "The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man... shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten."

The court clarified that the burden of proving "non-access" lies heavily on the person challenging the child's legitimacy, and a mere statement of separation is insufficient to displace this presumption.

Right to Privacy and Dignity: The court also cited the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in * Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025 SCC OnLine SC 175)*, which links the question of a forced DNA test to the fundamental right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court quoted the Apex Court's view:

> "Forcefully undergoing a DNA test would subject an individual's private life to scrutiny from the outside world. That scrutiny, particularly when concerning matters of infidelity, can be harsh and can eviscerate a person's reputation and standing in society... On account of this, he has the right to undertake certain actions to protect his dignity and privacy, including refusing to undergo a DNA test."

The court noted that such tests have far-reaching consequences, affecting not only the child but also the parents, and cannot be ordered without satisfying a high threshold of proof.

Final Verdict

The High Court concluded that the husband had only made a bald assertion that his wife lived separately, without providing any substantial evidence to prove there was no possibility of cohabitation during the relevant period. Finding no illegality or arbitrariness in the orders passed by the lower courts, Justice Chawan Prakash held that the revision petition lacked merit.

The court's final order stated: > "In the present case, the revisionist has merely stated that his wife remained in matrimonial house for few days and child is not his biological child. The learned trial court as well as learned appellate court have given specific findings and there is no illegality in passing the aforesaid orders. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed."

This judgment serves as a strong reminder that courts will protect a child's right to legitimacy and an individual's right to privacy, refusing to order invasive procedures like DNA tests based on mere suspicion or marital discord.