DNA tests in paternity disputes require a strong prima facie case; without it, courts cannot compel testing due to privacy rights and legal presumptions of legitimacy.

ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, to set aside the order dated, 22.07.2025, made in Crl.MP.No.1089 of 2025 in MC.No.26 of 2022, by the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, led to filing of this Criminal Revision Case and necessary for disposal of the same, are as follows:-

a) The Petitioner, represented by his mother, Jothi, had filed a maintenance case in MC.No.26 of 2022, before the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, against the Respondent, seeking maintenance, alleging that though she was legally married to one Subbaiah, who was working abroad and died on 07.10.2020, the Petitioner was born to her through the Respondent, by physical relations by threat and coercion, on several occasions. The Petitioner, who was born on 21.01.2006, represented by his mother, had filed Crl.MP.No.1089 of 2025 in MC.No.26 of 2021, under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 , seeking a direction to conduct a DNA Test to establish the paternity of the Petitioner, who was minor at that time. Though in all Official Records and school documents, the name of the father of the Petitioner was given as Subbaiah, the Petitioner now claims that he was born through the Respondent herein.

b) The Respondent herein has also filed a counter in the said petition, seeking DNA Test, stating that since the Petitioner was born during the subsistence of the marriage of mother of the Petitioner with Subbaiah, the Petitioner is presumed to be the legitimate son of Subbaiah and even the Petitioner, while applying for bail in Cr.No. 126 of 2025, had declared the name of Subbiah as his father in the bail bond and surety documents and hence, DNA Test, as prayed for by the Petitioner, cannot be ordered.

c) By the detailed impugned order, the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, had dismissed the said petition, seeking DNA Test, for want of sufficient cause, strong prima facie case, legal justification and supporting materials and relying on the Petitioner's own declarations in the legal documents and also on the ground of long and explained delay of nearly two decades in approaching the Court. As against the same, the Petitioner herein, who now attained majority, has filed this Criminal Revision Case.

3. This court heard Mr.V.Kannan, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and considered his submissions and also perused the entire materials available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Respondent was responsible for the birth of the Petitioner and hence, he is accountable and that since the biological heritage of the Petitioner is in question, the DNA Test is necessarily required to be conducted, as prayed for by the Petitioner, since the DNA Test will give closure to the issues in the matter and the future of the Petitioner will depends on the outcome of the DNA Test. The learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner cannot be penalised for the mistakes or errors of his mother in taking necessary legal steps to protect his rights and that the Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order as it did not consider the facts in the matter and also erred in presuming about various points, none of which are attributable to the Petitioner, but only to his mother and thus, the learned counsel prays for allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

5. According to the Petitioner, the mother of the Petitioner was legally married to one Subbaiah, who was working abroad and died on 07.10.2020. The Petitioner was born to her through the Respondent on 21.01.2006. The maintenance case was filed in the year 2022, after the death of her husband, Subbiah in the year 2020. The Petitioner has now attained the age of majority.

6. The Petitioner, represented by his mother, had sought for a direction to conduct a DN