DNA examination in familial disputes requires strong evidence of non-access to protect the legitimacy and rights of the child, reinforcing the need for a careful balance between evidentiary purposes and child welfare.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, CJ.

1. This appeal from order has been preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against judgment and order dated 16.12.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Civil Suit No.208 of 2022 Sunil Singh vs. Anju Gupta Singh, whereby, application filed by appellant seeking permission for conducting DNA examination has been rejected.

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are that appellant–husband instituted a matrimonial proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital against respondent no.1–wife, inter alia alleging matrimonial misconduct including adultery. During the pendency of said proceedings, appellant moved an application (paper No.78-C dated 29.09.2025) before learned Family Court seeking direction for conducting DNA examination of the minor child. The said application was filed with object of substantiating allegation of adultery levelled by appellant against respondent no.1. Learned Family Court, upon consideration of the said application, rejected the same vide order dated 16.12.2025. While doing so, learned court below appears to have proceeded on the premise that permitting DNA examination would amount to determining the paternity of child and may adversely affect the rights, dignity and future of minor. Aggrieved by rejection of his application for DNA examination, appellant has preferred the present appeal from order before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for appellant has assailed the impugned order as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of law. It is submitted that learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the scope and purpose of application filed by appellant. It is argued by learned counsel for appellant that appellant had never sought any declaration regarding the paternity of child, nor did he intend to disturb the legal status or rights of minor. The limited prayer of appellant was only to obtain scientific evidence by way of DNA examination for the purpose of substantiating his plea of adultery against respondent no.1. He further submits that learned court below has gravely erred in misdirecting itself by treating application for DNA testing as an attempt to attribute parentage of child to respondent no.2, whereas no such case was pleaded by appellant. According to him, the entire reasoning of impugned order rests on an assumption which does not arise from the pleadings on record.

4. It is further submitted by him that in matrimonial disputes, particularly those involving allegations of adultery, direct evidence is seldom available and parties are often required to rely upon circumstantial or scientific evidence. In such circumstances, DNA examination constitutes a crucial and effective mode of proof, especially when no other cogent evidence is available to appellant.

5. Learned counsel for appellant has also argued that learned Family Court has erroneously conflated the issue of adultery with that of determination of paternity. It is submitted that seeking DNA examination for evidentiary purposes cannot be equated with questioning the legitimacy or status of child. It is further argued by him that appellant has no intention to cause any prejudice, stigma or harm to minor child, and adequate safeguards can always be imposed by the Court to protect the privacy, dignity and interests of child while permitting such examination.

6. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for appellant on judicial precedents in the cases ofDipawita Roy vs. Ronobroto Roy , (2015) 1 SCC 365 and Ivan Rathinam vs. Milan Joseph , 2025 SCC Online SC 175, wherein, it has b