DNA tests may be ordered in paternity disputes when evidence is lacking, balancing personal privacy against the need for clarity.

O R D E R

The review petition is filed to review the judgment passed in the above-captioned original petition. The review petitioner was the 1^st respondent in the original petition, which was filed by the 1^st respondent herein assailing the order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2021 in O.S.No.387 of 2019 by the Court of the Munsiff, Perumbavoor (in short, 'Trial Court'), declining to refer the parties to the suit to undergo a Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Test. The 2^nd respondent in the review petition, the mother of the 1^st respondent, was the 2^nd respondent in the original petition. For convenience, the parties are referred to by their status in the review petition.

2. The 1^st respondent has filed the suit to declare that he is the son of the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent.

However, the petitioner has denied the said allegation. On the contrary, the 2^nd respondent has admitted the assertion in the plaint. In view of the petitioner’s denial of the relationship and the paternity of the 1^st respondent, the latter filed an application to refer the parties to the suit to a DNA Test for the proper determination of the suit. However, the Trial Court dismissed the application. Challenging the said order, the original petition was filed. By the impugned judgment, this Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and referred the parties to the Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology, Thiruvananthapuram, for conducting the DNA Test.

3. It is the petitioner's case in the review petition that, as he was suffering from age-related ailments, he was precluded from engaging a lawyer to contest the original petition. Consequently, the impugned judgment was passed without affording him an opportunity of being heard. The DNA Test can be ordered only in deserving cases, where there is no possibility of adducing any other evidence. Furthermore, this Court has failed to consider that an individual cannot be compelled to undergo a DNA test, as such compulsion would infringe their personal liberty and right to privacy. This Court has also failed to consider the difficulties and inconveniences that would be imposed on the parties by the proposed DNA Test. There is an error apparent on the face of the judgment.

4. I have heard Sri. Krishnanunni T., the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assisted by Sri.C. Dilip; Sri. M.K. Gopimohanan, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and Sri. Jayaprasad M.R., the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the review petition. He contended that, as the 2^nd respondent has admitted her relationship with the petitioner, there is no necessity to conduct a DNA Test. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph [ 2025 KHC OnLine 6076 ] to buttress his contention that no person can be compelled to undergo a DNA Test as it would infringe their right to privacy.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the review petition. They submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment warranting its review. It is after considering the authoritative precedents on the point and the facts of the case that this Court ordered the DNA Test, particularly because the petitioner has denied the paternity of the 1^st respondent. The petitioner's sole intention is to protract the determination of the suit. Hence, the review petition may be dismissed.

7. The 1^st respondent's specific case is that he was born out of an outside the marriage relationship between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent. Although the 2^nd respondent has admitted the above assertion in her written statement, the petitioner has denied it.

8. To disprove the assertion of the pe