DNA testing is not a routine procedure and cannot be ordered to conduct a roving inquiry into paternity. It requires a strong prima facie case of non-access to rebut the presumption of legitimacy, while balancing the competing rights to privacy and the child's interest in retaining their identity.

The present petition arises out of the order dated 20.11.2024, as passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, (Additional District Judge), Family Court Chamba, District Chamba, whereby an application under Section 151 CPC for DNA test, filed by the present petitioner, has been rejected.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that neither defendant No.1 is his wife nor defendants No. 2 to 4 are his children. As per the averments as made in the plaint, respondents/defendants No. 2 to 4 are children of respondent/defendant No.1, who have no interest in the matter, hence they are being sued through respondent/defendant No.1 being their mother and natural guardian. The respondent/defendant No.1 is already married to one Anil. When respondent/defendant No.1 became pregnant, she visited PHC Brangal along with her husband Anil, where she disclosed name of her husband as Anil. At that time, Anil, who was also accompanying her, signed consent letter for abortion of defendant No.1 vide OPD slip No. 4201. It was averred that in the presence of first marriage of respondent/defendant No.1 with Anil, she was not competent to solemnize second marriage with the petitioner/plaintiff. Hence, the alleged marriage of defendant No.1 with the petitioner/plaintiff, if any, is illegal, void and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

As per case set up by the petitioner/plaintiff, respondent/defendant No.1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner/plaintiff before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, wherein she, while appearing as RW1, disclosed that her marriage was solemnized at Bharmour Temple, but she failed to disclose name of Purohit, who got the marriage solemnized. In the absence of rites, ceremonies and custom, the alleged marriage with petitioner/plaintiff is illegal, void and does not confer any right upon respondent/defendant No.1 or her children. The findings returned by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, vide order dated 16.4.2010 to the effect that respondent/defendant No.1 is legally wedded wife of petitioner/plaintiff and respondents/defendants No. 2 and 3 are children of petitioner/plaintiff, as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Chamba, vide judgment dated 20.04.2011, are wrong, illegal, void and not binding upon the petitioner/plaintiff.

Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that respondent/defendant No.1 is not his legally wedded wife nor respondents/defendants No. 2 o 4 are his children; the findings returned by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, in Criminal Case No. 189/IV/2007 vide order dated 16.4.2010, as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Chamba, in Criminal Revision No. 3/10, vide judgment dated 20.04.2011, are wrong, illegal, void and not binding upon the petitioner/plaintiff with mandatory injunction, thereby directing respondent/defendant No.1 not to claim herself as wife and respondents/defendants No. 2 to 4 as children of the plaintiff.

The suit was contested by respondents/defendants No. 1 to 4 by raising preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, non-joinder of necessary party, limitation, estoppel etc. On merits, it was stated that respondent/defendant No.1 hails from village society and is governed by custom in the matter of marriage, which is prevalent from the time immemorial in District Chamba. It was stated that respondent/defendant No.1 is legally wedded wife of the plaintiff. Both of them lived and cohabited together as husband and wife at Village Chulihara and at Mohalla Charpat and defendants No. 2 to 4 were born out of the said wedlock. It was averred that in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner/plaintiff failed to produce said Anil as his witness in order to corroborate or substantiate his case.

As per defendants, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, decided factum of m