DNA Test Can't Be Used as Shortcut to Prove Adultery; Unexplained Delay & Failure to Prove Non-Access Fatal to Plea: Madras High Court - 2025-10-04

Madras High Court Rejects Husband's Belated Plea for DNA Test, Upholds Child's Right to Privacy and Legitimacy

CHENNAI – The Madras High Court has delivered a significant judgment emphasizing that a DNA test cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or used as a "short cut" to establish infidelity. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shamim Ahmed dismissed a husband's petition seeking a DNA test on his minor child, citing an inordinate nine-year delay, the failure to establish a prima facie case of non-access, and the overriding legal presumption of a child's legitimacy under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Case Background: A Delayed Challenge to Paternity

The case involved Arumugam, the petitioner, and his wife, Kalaiselvi. The couple married in 2001 but soon faced matrimonial disputes. In a violent turn of events, Arumugam stabbed a man he suspected of having an illicit relationship with his wife in August 2001. He was subsequently convicted in 2003 and sentenced to five years in prison.

Years later, in 2012, Arumugam filed for divorce on grounds of adultery, which was granted ex-parte in 2013. In the same year, Kalaiselvi filed a petition seeking maintenance for herself and their minor daughter, Salini. It was only in 2021, nine years after the maintenance proceedings began, that Arumugam filed an application demanding a DNA test to disprove his paternity of the child. This application was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Palani, prompting Arumugam to file the present revision case before the High Court.

Petitioner's Arguments vs. Court's Scrutiny

Petitioner's Stance: Arumugam’s counsel argued that since he was imprisoned for five years, he had no access to his wife, and therefore, the child could not be his. He contended that a DNA test was essential to prove his claim and absolve him of his maintenance liability.

Court's Findings: Justice Shamim Ahmed systematically dismantled the petitioner's arguments, finding the plea to be a frivolous attempt to humiliate his wife and delay the maintenance proceedings.

Legal Principles Applied: Presumption of Legitimacy and Right to Privacy

The court heavily relied on Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872). This provision establishes a conclusive presumption that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate, unless it can be definitively shown that the parties had "no access to each other" at the time of conception.

The court noted that the petitioner failed to provide any concrete evidence of non-access, such as the specific dates of his incarceration. The judgment underscored that this strong legal presumption is designed to protect children from unwarranted inquiries into their paternity.

Citing several Supreme Court precedents, including Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph (2025) and Aparna Ajinkya Firodia Vs. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023), the High Court reiterated that: - DNA tests are intrusive and cannot be ordered routinely. - A strong prima facie case must be established by the person challenging paternity. - Ordering such tests can have devastating consequences, violating the child's and mother's right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

In its powerfully worded order, the Court observed:

"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. It is always open to the husband to prove by other evidence the adulterious conduct of the wife, but the child's right to identity should not be allowed to be sacrificed."

The Court also condemned the petitioner's inaction, stating:

"His complete silence for the said period [nearly 9 years] only raises further doubts on the genuineness of claim of the Revision Petitioner... No reasonable or acceptable explanation has been provided as to why the Revision Petitioner remained silent."

Final Verdict and Its Implications

The Madras High Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish a prima facie case, and the Trial Court was correct in dismissing his application. The revision petition was dismissed as frivolous and without merit.

This judgment serves as a strong reminder that while science offers tools like DNA testing, their use in legal proceedings is governed by established principles of law, fundamental rights, and the best interests of the child. It reinforces that paternity challenges cannot be used as a tool for harassment or to escape legal obligations, especially after long and unexplained delays.