The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on IA No.5 in Crl.Misc.No.63/2025 dated 18.03.2026 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, the father is before this Court.

2. The respondent herein had filed Crl.Misc.No.63/2025 seeking maintenance for her child. In that case, IA.No.5 was filed under Section 45 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, praying for directions to conduct a DNA test to determine the biological relationship between the minor son and the father. The Family Court allowed the same by the impugned order, directing the minor child and the father to provide their blood samples for a DNA test to determine paternity. Aggrieved thereby, the father is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the father submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of law governing the power to direct DNA testing and is liable to be quashed. It is submitted that the Family Court failed to appreciate that directing a DNA test is not a matter of course and can be ordered only when a strong prima facie case is made out, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. The petitioner submits that the court erred in treating an alleged statement in a reply notice as a conclusive admission without subjecting the same to proof in accordance with law, thereby committing a grave error apparent on the face of the record. It is submitted that even assuming, without admitting, that there was any form of acquaintance or interaction, the same cannot be equated with proof of paternity, and the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous presumption. It is submitted that the Family Court failed to consider that an identical application seeking DNA testing had already been rejected by a competent civil court, that the said order had attained finality, and that the plaintiff therein has not chosen to challenge the same before any higher forum. It is submitted that permitting the very same relief to be sought and granted in subsequent proceedings on the same set of facts amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law and is impermissible in the eye of the law. It is submitted that the court failed to consider the mother's conduct in initiating multiple proceedings with inconsistent stands, which clearly demonstrates mala fide intent. The impugned order permits a roving and fishing enquiry, which is impermissible in law and has been consistently deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel had relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. Raj Gupta & others, (2022) 1 SCC 20. He relied on para Nos.11.1, 13, 14, 16 and 17 which reads thus:

“11.1 In circumstances where other evidence is available to prove or dispute the relationship, the court should ordinarily refrain from ordering blood tests. This is 3(2015) 1 SCC 365 because such tests impinge upon the right of privacy of an individual and could also have major societal repercussions.

Indian law leans towards legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy. The presumption in law of legitimacy of a child cannot be lightly repelled. This Court, in Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram4, while determining the question of standard of proof required to displace the presumption in favor of paternity of child born during subsistence of valid marriage held:

“10. We may remember that Section 112 of the Evidence Act was enacted at a time when the modern scientific advancements with deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as well as ribonucleic acid (RNA) tests were not even in contemplation of the legislature. The result of a genuine DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate. But even that is not enough to escape from the conclusiveness of Section 112 of the Act e.g. if a husband and wife were living together during the time of conception but the DNA test revealed that the child was not born to the husband, the conclusiveness in law would remain irrebuttable. This may look hard from the point of view of the husba