The right to privacy of a child outweighs the need for DNA testing in marital disputes.

ORDER:

The petitioner herein is the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2019 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vizianagaram. The petitioner filed the above said O.P. to dissolve the marital relationship of the petitioner and the respondent by way of divorce under Section 13 (1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955.

2. The following provision is hereby extracted for effective disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition:

" Section 13 . Divorce (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party-

(ia) xxxxxx

(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition;"

3. While the said O.P. is pending for consideration, the petitioner herein field I.A.No.553 of 2022 in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2019 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872, to send the two children by names Krishna Veni and Santhosh @ Ramesh for Centre for DNA Finger Printing and Diagnostics, Amaravathi, to know that the petitioner is not the legitimate father of the two children and the two children were not born in the wedlock of the petitioner along with the respondent herein. The said I.A.No.553 of 2022 in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2019 was dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2024, observing that if the DNA Test is ordered, they are looked down upon in society and they will be ridiculed and stating that the Hon'ble Apex Court also held view of judgments that a children cannot be mechanically subjected to DNA tests in each and every case between warring parents as a short-cut to establish proof of infidelity.

4. The said order in I.A.No.553 of 2022 in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2019 dated 10.07.2024 is assailed in the present Civil Revision Petition on the ground that ordering DNA test would not cause undue prejudice to the respondent, as it merely facilitates the discovery of truth and the right to privacy must be balanced with the right to justice, especially when the paternity is directly under challenge and denial of DNA testing deprives the petitioner of a critical piece of evidence necessity to prove his case.

5. Point for consideration:

Learned counsel for the respondent would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Rajendran Vs. Kamar Nisha and other reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1086, for the proposition that the use of DNA test is an extremely delicate and sensitive aspect and the Court must be reluctant in the use of such scientific advances and tools which result in invasion of right to privacy of an individual and may not only be prejudicial to the rights of the parties, but may have devastating effect on the child and sometimes the result of such scientific test may bastardise an innocent child even though his mother and her spouse were living together during the time of conception. The said judgment is aptly applicable to the present case.

6. Admittedly, the O.P. is filed to grant divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13 (1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act . The Hon'ble Apex Court also in the case of Goutam Kundu Vs. State of West Bengal and another reported in AIR 1993 SC 2295 , held that the Courts should not order blood tests as a matter of course and the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate is very strong and the Court emphasized that ordering blood tests without strong reasons may harm the child's reputation and social status. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that unless a strong pre