Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Shamim Ahmed, J.
Titus – Petitioner
versus
Golda Glory and Anr. – Respondents
Crl.RC(MD)No.914 of 2025
Decided on 7.10.2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 438 and 442 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 116 – Constitution of India – Articles 20(3) and 21 – Paternity of child – DNA Test for adjudication of birth status – Constitution of India guarantees every person right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of Constitution – Right to Privacy is implicit in Right to Life and Liberty guaranteed to citizens of India by Article 21 of Constitution – Application, seeking DNA Test ought to have been filed immediately after filing of maintenance case – There is lapse of more than two and half years – No satisfactory explanation has been given by Revision Petitioner for such inordinate delay – There exists strong presumption that husband is father of child borne by his wife during subsistence of their marriage – DNA tests cannot be directed, unless a strong prima facie case is made out and such tests should not be ordered as a matter of routine – Revision Petitioner has not produced a single piece of documentary evidence before Court to even prima facie support his claim that he is not biological father of 2nd Respondent – Prayer for DNA Test rejected. (Paras 22, 23, 29, 31, 33, 36, 42 and 43)
(B) DNA Test – Allegation of adultery by wife – DNA Testing cannot be used as a short cut method to establish infidelity that might have occurred over a decade ago or subsequently after birth of minor child – Question whether DNA Test should be permitted on child is to be analysed through prism of child and not through the prism of parents – Child cannot be used as a pawn to show that mother of child was living in adultery – It is always open to husband to prove by other evidence adulterous conduct of wife, but child’s right to identity should not be allowed to be sacrificed. (Para 40)
Result: Criminal Revision Case dismissed.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, to call for the records, relating to the order dated, 12.06.2025, made in Cr.MP.No.663 of 2024, by the Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi and to set aside the same.
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of this Criminal Revision Case, led to filing of this Criminal Revision Case and necessary for disposal of the same, are as follows:-
(a) It is alleged by the Revision Petitioner/Husband that though the marriage between him and the 1st Respondent/Wife was solemnized on 19.06.2018, according to Christian Rites and Customs, the marriage between them was not consummated and that the 1st Respondent was having illegal relationship with one Sivastephen and that to his shock and surprise, the 1st Respondent stated that only on compulsion by her parents, she married the Revision Petitioner. It is also stated by the Petitioner that when on 16.08.2018, the Revision Petitioner took the 1st Respondent to hospital for hair fall treatment, he came to know that the 1st Respondent was pregnant and that when the Revision Petitioner questioned her about the same, she stated that the child is not the Revision Petitioner’s.
(b) It is further stated by the Revision Petitioner that on 23.08.2018, the mother and uncle of the 1st Respondent took the 1st Respondent, locked the house and gave the keys to the brother of the Revision Petitioner and that on 26.08.2018, the uncle of the 1st Respondent informed that the 1st Respondent was not willing to live with him and requested to give divorce and that the minor male child/the 2nd Respondent was born within nine months from the date of their marriage, i.e. on 28.03.2019 and hence, he is not his son.
(c) The 1st Respondent has filed a maintenance Petition, under Section 125 of Cr.PC, against the Revision Petitioner in MC.No.11 of 2021 on 01.07.2021, before the Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi and the Revision Petitioner had also filed a counter affidavit in the said maintenance Petition. In the said maintenance Petition, the Revision Petitioner had filed an application in Crl.MP.No.663 of 2024, on 19.03.2024, seeking for DNA test to prove that the 2nd Respondent was not born through him and the 1st respondent/wife had filed a counter in the said application, seeking for DNA Test.
(d) By the impugned order, the Trial Court had dismissed the said Petition/Application, seeking DNA Test, on the grounds that the Revision Petitioner and the 1st Respondent were living as husband and wife from the date of their marriage and that the Revision Petitioner has failed to prove by furnishing valid evidence that the Revision Petitioner had no access with the 1st respondent during the relevant point of time. As against the same, the Revision Petitioner herein, has filed the present Criminal Revision Case on 21.07.2025.
3. This court heard Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Ms.M.R.Preethi, the learned counsel for the Respondents and considered their submissions and also perused the entire materials available on record.
4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that when the marriage itself was not consummated and there was no access between the Revision Petitioner and the 1st Respondent, during the relevant period of time, it cannot be stated that the 2nd Respondent was born through him and that in order to prove that there was no access between them, DNA test of both the Revision Petitioner and the Respondents is necessary and thus, an application, seeking DNA test to prove the paternity of the child in the matrimonial proceedings, is maintainable. The learned counsel has further submitted that the Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order, while rejecting the application of the Revision Petition for DNA Test, as it did not consider the facts of the matter and thus, the learned counsel prays for allowing this Criminal Revision Case.
5. Per contra, the learned couns
(1) Paternity of child – DNA tests cannot be ordered merely on vague allegations unless a strong prima facie case is established.(2) DNA test, though a scientific tool, intrudes into personal domain ....
The court affirmed that the evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction in rape cases, and a DNA test is not necessary at an advanced trial stage, balancing this against the right to pri....
The only disadvantage to the child which is put forward as an argument against the use of a blood test, not for therapeutic purposes but to ascertain paternity, is that the child is exposed to the ri....
Point of law: The only disadvantage to the child which is put forward as an argument against the use of a blood test, not for therapeutic purposes but to ascertain paternity, is that the child is exp....
DNA Test – It is not always necessary to conduct DNA test to ascertain whether a particular child was born to a particular person – It is burden of person who alleges or disputes paternity that he ha....
The court emphasized balancing the child's right to ascertain paternity with the father's right to privacy while ordering DNA testing under Section 112.
In paternity disputes, the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act prevails unless strong evidence of non-access is established, balancing privacy rights against the ne....
(1) DNA test – Paternity of child – Any Matrimonial (Civil) dispute between husband and wife pertaining to child born from wedlock, cannot be used for their own benefit by way of DNA Paternity Test, ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
