DNA testing for paternity must prioritize the child's rights and cannot be used solely to prove allegations against the parent.

ORDER :

Renuka Yara, J.

Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Y. Bala Murali, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the entire record.

2. This revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Jagtial (‘trial Court’), in I.A.No.173 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2024, dated 17.09.2024, wherein a petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872, to direct respondent No.1 and baby girl by name Maheera (‘minor child’) for DNA test to ascertain the paternity of the baby girl has been allowed with a direction for respondent No.1 and minor child to appear before the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory (‘FSL’) for DNA test within two weeks from the date of order and a direction to the Director, FSL, to conduct DNA test and submit a report to the Court.

3. The background of facts leading to filing of the present revision are that respondent No.1 filed H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2024 on the file of the trial Court under Section 13 (1) (i) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage between himself and the revision petitioner. The H.M.O.P. is filed on the ground that the revision petitioner is having an extra marital relationship with respondent No.2 and that she is of quarrelsome nature continuously demanding to live separately from his parents apart from partitioning of the property with his parents. The revision petitioner allegedly never showed interest to live in the company of respondent No.1, but always went to her paternal house. Further, the revision petitioner was always having conversations over phone with respondent No.2 and used to hide the same. Finally, on 26.05.2022, the revision petitioner herein declared that the minor child is not daughter of respondent No.1, but is the daughter of respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 is father only for the society. The revision petitioner abused respondent No.1 in un-parliamentary language and sought divorce. In this backdrop, H.M.O.P. was filed seeking dissolution of marriage.

4. In said H.M.O.P., I.A. under revision is filed to collect DNA samples of respondent No.1 and minor child for DNA test to ascertain paternity of the minor child. The reason stated for obtaining such samples is that the revision petitioner declared that minor child is not daughter of respondent No.1, but daughter of respondent No.2.

5. Whereas, case of the revision petitioner is that respondent No.1 can manage the DNA laboratory and can get any report. It is alleged that respondent No.1 does not like the revision petitioner and her minor child and is not interested to live with them, as such filed H.M.O.P. seeking dissolution of marriage. The case of the revision petitioner is that respondent No.1 collected the DNA samples and got DNA test done privately and got report in his favour and on the basis of the said report, respondent No.1 necked out the revision petitioner and minor child from his house. The revision petitioner opposed the collection of DNA samples. 6. Upon considering the case of both the parties by referring to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik , [(2014) 2 SCC 576], Sharda v. Dharmpal , [(2003) 4 SCC 493], Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal , [(1993) 3 SCC 418], Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy , [(2015) 1 SCC 365] and Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia , [(2024) 7 SCC 773], the trial Court arrived at conclusion that though conducting of DNA test