The Court affirmed the use of DNA testing in partition suits to establish paternity claims, emphasizing careful judicial discretion in balancing privacy rights with the interests of justice.

ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. The defendants in a suit for partition, aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court ordering DNA Test are the revision petitioners.

2. I have heard Mrs.P.T.Sundari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel for the first respondent. I have also gone through the records, including the impugned order.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the Trial Court erred in directing the petitioners to undergo a DNA Test along with respondents 2 & 3. She would submit that the respondents were only attempting to fish for evidence and the Courts cannot be a party to such exercise. She would further submit that compelling the petitioners to undergo DNA Test was against public policy and fundamental rights granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India more specifically Article including 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on the following decisions:-

(i) Aparna Ajinkya Firodia Vs. Ajinkya Aurn Firodia , reported in (2024) 7 SCC 773 ;

(ii) Sukhdev Singh and others Vs. Jaswinder Kaur , reported in CR. No.432 of 2019.

(iii) Ashok Kumar Vs. Raj Gupta and others , reported in (2022) 1 SCC 20 .

5. Per contra, Mr.B.Jawahar, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that no right of privacy was involved in the present case, as it is only a suit for partition, where the respondents were claiming to be the children born to late Arimuthu, through another wife, Alamelu, whereas, the revision petitioners are daughter and son respectively of the said Arimuthu through his first wife. He would further submit that the Trial Court had rightly allowed the Application holding that it would be the proper course of action in the interest of justice. He would therefore pray for the revision being dismissed.

6. I have paid my anxious and careful consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

7. The suit admittedly is one for partition. According to the respondents, late Arimuthu, married one Alamelu and they were blessed with the revision petitioners, daughter and son. The revision petitioners as defendants, denied the allegation that the respondents were born to Arimuthu and that Arimuthu never married Alamelu as contended by the respondents. The Application has been filed under Order 26 Rule 10A Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking for an appointment of a commission for scientific investigation. It is also seen from the records that in I.A.No.551 of 2013 had been taken out by the respondents herein when Arimuthu, the first defendant was alive. The Trial Court dismissed the Application on the ground that the Application was filed belatedly.

8. In fact, challenging the dismissal of the said Application, CRP.No.583 of 2018 was filed before this Court and this Court disposed of the revision petition taking note of the fact that since the father Arimuthu Gounder had died in the interregnum period, it would be open to the petitioners therein, that is the respondents herein, to seek DNA test with the respondents 2 to 3 before the Trial Court and further directed the Trial Court to dispose of any such Application on merits, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in CRP. No.583 of 2018 or in the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A. No.551 of 2013, which was the subject matter of the earlier revision. Subsequently, the present I.A. No.565 of 2021 came to be filed. The present Application though opposed by the revision petitioners came to be allowed by the Trial Court, the reasoning of the Trial Court in allowing the Application being that, it wou