Back
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Hareesh @ Harishkumar – Appellant
Versus
A. S. Umesh – Respondent
ORDER (CAV)
The petitioner/3rd defendant is before this Court calling in question an order dated 05-04-2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channarayapatna allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code in O.S.No.89 of 2016.
2. Heard Sri M. Vijay Krishna Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Murali Babu, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Factual Canvas:
3. The petitioner is the 3rd defendant. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are plaintiffs 1 and 2 institute a suit for partition in O.S.No.89 of 2016. Defendants 1, 2, and 3 file their written statement. Issues are framed by the concerned Court on 11-01-2018. Evidence is led by the plaintiffs in the suit. Examination and cross-examination happen. On 07-09-2023, after completion of plaintiffs’ evidence, the present petitioner was examined as DW-1 and the matter was posted for his cross-examination. At that stage, the plaintiffs file the application under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC seeking DNA test of defendants 1 and 3 to determine blood relation and paternity by way of scientific examination through an expert. The said application
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, ....
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.
DNA testing can be crucial for establishing maternity when denied, balancing evidentiary needs against privacy rights.
DNA test - Become absolutely necessary to order DNA test to find out the truth regarding the paternity of the second petitioner.
Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act, which reads as birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy.
The court upheld the right to privacy under Article 21, ruling that a party cannot be compelled to undergo a DNA test without exceptional circumstances, emphasizing the presumption of legitimacy in p....
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....
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....
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
