Choong Yeow Choy J:

JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1]The Plaintiff in this Originating Summons seeks an order directing that a paternity test be conducted in respect of the Second and Third Defendants.

[2]The Second and Third Defendants are the children of the Plaintiff and the First Defendant. The Plaintiff and the First Defendant have been embroiled in a long-standing and acrimonious dispute, including proceedings for judicial separation. As is often the case in such matrimonial conflicts, it is the children who bear the heaviest consequences.

[3]All Defendants have filed their respective Notices of Application to strike out the Plaintiffs Originating Summons, namely, Enclosures 12, 38, and 40 filed by the First, Second, and Third Defendants respectively.

[4]At first glance, this suit may appear to be a straightforward application to ascertain the truth of the children’s paternity. However, the issues it raises are anything but simple.

The Core Issue

[5]The principal issue before this Court is whether the Defendants’ respective Notices of Application, contained in Enclosures 12, 38, and 40, ought to be allowed.

[6]This, in turn, depends on whether the Defendants have satisfied the threshold for the Court to exercise its powers under Order 18 rule 19(3) of the Rules of Court 2012.

The Prayers in Enclosure 1

[7]In prayers sought by the Plaintiff in Enclosure 1 are as follows:

1.Satu deklarasi bahawa Plaintif telah menimbulkan beberapa keraguan yang serius berkaitan dengan paterniti Defendan Kedua dan Ketiga (‘Anak-Anak tersebut’) yang memerlukan satu ujian paternity melalui DNA dan/atau sampel darah;

2.Bahawa Defendan Kedua dan Ketiga memberi kerjasama melalui Defendan Pertama untuk menjalankan ujian paterniti melalui DNA dan/atau sampel darah di sebuah fasiliti perubatan seperti yang diperintahkan oleh Mahkamah untuk menentu pastikan paterniti mereka;

3.Satu perintah bahawa Defendan Pertama memudahkan dan memastikan kehadiran anak-anak tersebut di fasiliti perubatan yang dilantik untuk ujian DNA dan/atau sampel darah;

4.Bahawa Defendan Pertama menyediakan semua kebenaran dan dokumen perjalanan ataupun persiapan administratif sekiranya anak-anak tersebut berada di luar negara.

5.Perintah berlanjutan bahawa kos DNA ataupun ujian darah akan ditanggung seperti yang Mahkamah yang mulia ini anggap adil;

6.Perintah berlanjutan bahawa Defendan Pertama menanggung semua kos sekiranya didapati Plaintif bukan merupakan bapa biologikal anak-anak tersebut.

7.Satu deklarasi (sekiranya dibuktikan) bahawa setelah ujian DNA dan darah tersebut diselesaikan, dan menunjukkan bahawa Plaintif bukan merupakan bapa kandung ataupun biologikal anak-anak tersebut, Plaintif tidak akan menanggung mereka ataupun membayar sebarang nafkah di bawah Akta Membaharui Undang-Undang (Perkahwinan dan Perceraian) 1976 ataupun Iain-Iain perundangan;

8.Lain-lain perintah yang Mahkamah yang mulia ini anggap adil.

The Governing Principles

[8]In considering the Plaintiffs prayers in Enclosure 1 and the Defendants’ striking-out applications in Enclosures 12, 28, and 40, this Court is guided by two overriding considerations.

[9]The first concerns the principle of the best interests of the child, as articulated in the recent decision of the Supreme Court of India in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v Ajinkya Arun Firodia, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9855 of 2022, delivered in February 2023.

[10]Although that decision is not binding on this Court, the similarity of its factual matrix, coupled with the comprehensive guidelines laid down by the Indian Supreme Court on the use of DNA testing, renders it both instructive and persuasive.

[11]More significantly, the Federal Court in MPPL & Anor v CAS

[59] ... Mere suspicion on the balance of probability that a child could be the issue of another man should not be sufficient reason to seek assistance from the Courts to order a DNA test which might potentially breach that layer of legal protection.

…

Question 5: Whether court can compel a DNA test

[89] There are ar