The court emphasized that the legality of DNA tests hinges on balancing personal privacy rights against the need for evidentiary certainty in matters of legitimacy.

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha.J Petitioners challenge Ext.P6 order of the Family Court, Kottarakkara in I.A.No.151/2025 in O.P.1083/2018 by which the said interlocutory application filed by them for conducting 'sibling DNA test' between the petitioners 2 and 3 and respondents 2 to 5 was dismissed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners explained that the petitioners had filed I.A No.151/2025 in the said Original Petition for conducting the DNA test since the respondents denied the paternity of the petitioners 2 and 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners filed O.P.No.1083/2018 seeking partition of the properties left behind by late Balakrishna Pillai, who was the husband of the 1^st petitioner and the father of petitioners 2 and 3; but that the respondents denied the paternity of petitioners 2 and 3 and also denied the marriage between the 1^st petitioner and Balakrishna Pillai. It was contended by the petitioners that when they sought partition of the properties left behind by deceased Balakrishna Pillai, respondents resisted the claim for partition stating that petitioners have no right in the property; and hence, that it becomes necessary for a declaration that the 1^st petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of deceased Balakrishna Pillai and are entitled to succeed to the assets left behind by Balakrishna Pillai. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, in view of the objections raised by respondents in the Original Petition, what is to be decided is the marital status of the 1^st petitioner with Balakrishna Pillai and the paternity of petitioners 2 and 3. It was contended that the paternity can be scientifically proved only if ‘sibling DNA test’ of petitioners 2 and 3 with that of respondents 2 to 5 is conducted. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Family Court has committed gross illegality in dismissing the petition filed for conducting the DNA test; that the Family Court went wrong in holding that it was the petitioners 1 to 3 who are bound to prove the marriage between the late Balakrishna Pillai and the 1^st petitioner. It was contended that the finding of the learned Family Court that, for proving the legitimacy of petitioners 2 and 3 with late Balakrishna Pillai, they have to prove the marital relationship between the 1^st petitioner and Balakrishna Pillai and petitioners are not required to prove the paternity by conducting DNA test is a wrong finding.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the findings of the learned Family Court in Ext.P6 order and contended that there is no necessity to conduct DNA test; that the fact in issue is whether the 1^st petitioner is legally married to late Balakrishna Pillai and therefore, there is no necessity to conduct the DNA test as rightly held by the learned Family Court in Ext.P6 order.

4. Admittedly, O.P.No.1083/2018 was filed by the petitioners seeking partition of the properties left behind by late Balakrishna Pillai. Respondents 1 to 5 resisted the Original Petition for partition and contended that the 1^st petitioner is not the wife of Balakrishna Pillai. They denied the marriage between the Balakrishna Pillai and the 1^st petitioner, as alleged by the petitioners and contended that petitioners 2 and 3 are not the children of Balakrishna Pillai.

5. Petitioners 1 to 3 have got a case that late Balakrishna Pillai contracted a 2^nd marriage with the 1^st respondent and respondents 2 to 5 are the children born to Balakrishna Pillai in the said wedlock. Since the petitioners' contention is that Balakrishna Pillai had married the 1^st petitioner be