1979 Supreme(Raj) 403
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.C.Agrawal, J.
Ramchandra - Appellant
Versus
Mst. Bhuri - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 321 of 1975.
Decided On : 28-09-1979
The court has inherent powers to give a direction to a party to allow a sample of blood being taken from his or her person for the purpose of testing. However, the court cannot direct a person to undergo a blood test against his or her consent.
Headnote:
BLOOD TEST - PATERNITY - SECTION 112 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT - INTEREST OF THE CHILD - [SECTION 112 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 20 OF THE FAMILY LAW REFORMS ACT, 1969 (ENGLAND)]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Ramchander, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. The petitioner alleged that the respondent had given birth to two children although he had never had sexual intercourse with her. The respondent denied the allegations and pleaded that both children were begotten by the petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application seeking directions to the respondent to permit samples of blood being taken from her person and from both the children for the purpose of testing to establish the paternity of the children.
Finding of the Court:
The District Judge rejected the application on the grounds that (1) blood grouping does not provide a positive test that the children are or are not of the petitioner, and (2) the respondent cannot be compelled to submit to such test. The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the order of the District Judge.
Issues: 1. Whether blood grouping can be used to establish paternity? 2. Whether the court can direct a party to a proceeding to allow a sample of blood being taken from his or her person for the purpose of testing? 3. Whether a direction can be given by the court for taking the sample of blood of a minor child in cases where the paternity of the child is in issue?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Blood grouping can be used to establish that a particular man is not the father of a particular child, but it cannot be used to prove that a particular man is the father of a particular child. 2. The court has no power to direct a person to undergo a blood test against his or her consent. However, the court can give a direction to a party to allow a sample of blood being taken from his or her person for the purpose of testing in exercise of its inherent powers. If the person so directed unreasonably refuses to allow the sample of blood being taken from his or her person, the court can treat his or her refusal as evidence against him or her and draw an inference therefrom. 3. A direction can be given by the court for taking the sample of blood of a minor child in cases where the paternity of the child is in issue only if the ordering of the blood test would be of any possible benefit to the child.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed. The court held that although the District Judge was not right in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for the reasons given by him in his orders, the said application of the petitioner could not be allowed for the reasons mentioned above.
(1) Blood grouping does not provide a positive test that the children are or are not of the petitioner.
(2) The respondent cannot be compelled to submit to such test. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the District Judge, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.
"In one specific biological trait, viz-blood-group, scientific opinion is now in, accord- accepting the fact that there is a causative relation between the trait of the progenitor and the trait of the progeny. In other words, the blood composition of a child may be some evidence as to th