A court may mandate a DNA test to establish paternity when it is the primary issue in a civil suit, no other conclusive evidence exists, and the balance of interests—specifically the claimant's right to identify their biological lineage and inheritance—outweighs the privacy concerns of the alleged father.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave Granted.

2. The appellant-Chaturbhuj Pradhan¹[For ease ‘CP’] is aggrieved by the fact that he has been ordered, concurrently, by the Courts below i.e., the First Additional Civil Judge, Class -II, Basna²[In Civil Suit No. 13A/2019, by Order dated 21st September 2019] and the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur³[In WP227 No. 540 of 2021, by Order dated 16th June 2025], to undergo DNA test to determine the paternity of the first respondent⁴[For ease, ‘Amar’], and has challenged the same before us in these proceedings.

3. The sequence of events triggering this appeal is that Amar is the son of the second respondent. The former claims to be the son of CP born on 10th September 1999 as a result of consensual relations between his mother and CP that took place in January 1999. The latter, while denying this, relies on his acquittal⁵[Sessions Case No. 268/1999 by judgement dated 31st December 1999] in a case registered by the second respondent under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Beginning in 2003 and continuing until sometime in 2010, there were several instances of litigation inter se the parties concerning maintenance. However, it is not necessary to refer to those in detail as they do not form part of the present dispute, except to note that in Misc.Crl.CaseNo.113 of 2005 CP’s appeal before the High Court against grant of maintenance, an observation is made that Amar and the second respondent had failed to establish any relationship of CP, with them. This order was challenged before this Court⁶[Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 2011 disposed of on 31st July 2024] and came to be disposed of in Lok Adalat with the observation that at the time of filing, Amar was a minor and as on the date of hearing before the Lok Adalat, he was 24 years old and as such nothing survives in the matter. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, having attained majority, Amar filed a suit seeking declaration that he is the son of CP and that, accordingly, he is entitled to1/3rd share in his property. The Civil Court, particulars of which have been noted in para-2, passed necessary orders. CP’s appeal before the High Court was also dismissed observing that no other kind of evidence would be sufficient to clearly establish the paternity of Amar.

4. Before us it is contended by CP that he cannot be compelled to give DNA sample nor is there an eminent need for the DNA test. Further, there cannot be any adverse inference against him under Section 114(h) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872⁷[IEA] at this stage. It is submitted that Amar’s civil suit is barred by res-judicata. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of Amar that in view of the continuous denial of paternity by CP, there is no other recourse available to determine the question of paternity and therefore it is in the interest of justice. When the balance of interest between CP and Amar is examined, the same is in favour of the latter since there is no application of presumption under Section 112 of IEA. The right of privacy in as much as it is available to CP is not an absolute right. Regarding the question of res judicata, the same is submitted to be not applicable since the previous proceedings under Section 125CrPC were instituted by the second respondent, though was also for the benefit of Amar, and further that these proceedings are summary in nature and do not amount to a proper finding.

5. We now examine these competing claims. In doing so, we must take notice of the controlling judgments:

5.1 Goutam Ku