The right to privacy and dignity must be balanced against the need for paternity proof via DNA tests, especially regarding elderly defendants.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 218 of 2025 Decided on : 20.08.2025 Ram Padam …Petitioner Versus Prabhu Lal and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Rajender Singh Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Priti Steta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

H “It is therefore respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and impugned order dated 5.5.2025 passed by the Ld. Senior Civil Judge Kinnaur at Reckong Peo in C.M.A. No. 55/2025 titled Ram Padam Vs Prabhu Lal may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of law and justice.”

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 05.05.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, in CMA No. 55/2025, titled Ram Padam Vs. Prabhu Lal & anr., in terms whereof, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 75(E) read with Order XXVI, Rule 10(A) of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), further read with Section 39 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam , 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has been dismissed. u

3. I ohave heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well asC learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 and have also carefully gone through the order under challenge.

4. In terms of the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner with the prayer that defendant No.1 be directed to appear before the Medical Officer to give sample of blood or any other part of the body for DNA examination, has been rejected.

5. The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration against the defendant to the effect that he is the son of defendant, being born from the womb of proforma defendant from the loins of defendant No.1. Consequential relief of injunction as stated in the plaint, has also been prayed. During the pendency of this suit, the application was filed by the petitioner with the prayer that to settle the matter once and forever as to whether the defendant was the biological father of the petitioner or not, let DNA test of the defendant be conducted. Learned Trial Court has dismissed this application by returning the following findings:-

“9. Iun the present case, the applicant/plaintiff was 60 years old when he filed this suit. The respondent was 86 years old at that time. The main suit appears to be barred by limitation as ideally the suit should have been filed 3 years after the applicant/plaintiff attained the age of majority. On his part, the applicant/plaintiff has projected in the plaint that the expenses for his education were borne by the respondent/defendant no.1 and there was no dispute regarding his paternity but the dispute arose after 25.11.2019 when the respondent/defendant no.1 executed the settlement deed in favour of his son Subhash Chand.

10. This implies that the applicant/plaintiff contends that the respondent/defendant no.1 denied proprietary rights to him and thereby refused to acknowledge him as his son.

11. Even if the claim of applicant/plaintiff is admitted that he is the biological son of respondent/defendant no.1, still, as per the Customary Law, the applicant/plaintiff would at most entitled be to maintenance from the respondent/defendant no.1, however, he would not have any right to challenge the settle ment deed executed by the respondent/defendant no.1.

12. Even the right to claim maintenance is not certain because it is thet pleaded case of applicant/plaintiff that he retired as a Foreman from Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation.

13. Therefore, there are serious doubts regarding the accrual of cause of action to the applicant/plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint and the main suit also appears to be time barred.

14. For