Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
DNA Testing as a Discretionary Tool - The courts emphasize that DNA tests should not be ordered routinely but only in deserving or specific cases where necessity is established. For instance, the Supreme Court in Teeku Dutta (2005) declared that DNA test is not to be directed as a matter of routine but only in deserving cases ["Chand Kaur VS Ramdei @ Om Pati - Punjab and Haryana"]. Similarly, multiple judgments reinforce that a DNA test requires a prima facie case or specific denial of paternity before being ordered ["PONNAMMA AGED 83 YEARS W/O LATE BALAKRISHNA PILLAI vs T G THANKAMMA AGED 84 YEARS - Kerala"], ["M.S.Sunish vs The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58935"], ["JISHNU @ VICHU Vs STATE OF KERALA - 2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14322"].
Conditions for Ordering DNA Tests - Courts generally require a clear necessity, such as denial of paternity, specific allegations, or circumstances where the relationship is disputed. For example, in Dipanwita Roy, the Supreme Court allowed DNA testing in a matrimonial dispute but clarified it was not for determining legitimacy per se, rather in specific circumstances ["Chand Kaur VS Ramdei @ Om Pati - Punjab and Haryana"]. The courts also consider whether the test is sought as a routine matter or with genuine necessity ["BADDILA REDDY SWAMI NAIDU VS B. NEELAVATHI - Andhra Pradesh"], ["M.S.Sunish vs The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58935"].
Impact of Refusal and Adverse Inferences - If a party refuses to undergo DNA testing, courts often draw adverse inferences against them, especially when paternity or relationship is contested ["POTTY vs SHAJI - Kerala"]. For example, the order in one case states, if the petitioner refuses to undergo a DNA test, the Trial Court shall draw an adverse inference against him ["POTTY vs SHAJI - Kerala"].
Limitations and Legal Principles - The courts recognize that ordering DNA tests involves sensitive issues, and the process must respect the rights of parties. The courts have repeatedly held that DNA testing cannot be ordered as a matter of routine and should be based on specific, justified grounds ["Ifraq @ Mohammad Ifraq Husain VS State Of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad"], ["M.S.Sunish vs The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58935"]. In some cases, courts have set aside or rejected requests for DNA tests when the necessity was not established or when the test was sought prematurely ["Arimuthu (Died) vs Alamelu - Madras"], ["Kanickaraj vs Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Periyakulam, Theni District. - Madras"].
Judicial Discretion and Case-by-Case Approach - The courts exercise discretion, balancing the rights of parties with the need for proof. For example, in cases where paternity is denied or disputed, courts have permitted DNA tests after careful consideration ["PONNAMMA AGED 83 YEARS W/O LATE BALAKRISHNA PILLAI vs T G THANKAMMA AGED 84 YEARS - Kerala"], ["Doolam alias Thallapally Sharanya vs Doolam Vamshidhar Goud - Telangana"]. Conversely, in cases lacking sufficient grounds, courts have refused or set aside such directions ["Nisha Maria Sebastian, D/o. Sebastian Vilakkunnel VS Gerard Gigi Michael, S/o. N. J. Michael - Kerala"], ["N. Raja Babu S/o Kondayya VS Nakka Prasanna W/o Nakka Raja Babu - Andhra Pradesh"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The overarching principle derived from these citations is that DNA testing is a valuable but limited tool, to be employed only when justified by the facts of the case. Courts consistently emphasize that such tests are not to be ordered routinely but require a clear necessity, specific allegations, or disputes regarding biological relationships. Refusal to undergo testing can lead to adverse inferences, but the process must respect legal rights and procedural fairness. These principles aim to prevent unwarranted invasions of privacy and ensure that DNA tests are used judiciously within the judicial process ["Ifraq @ Mohammad Ifraq Husain VS State Of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad"], ["M.S.Sunish vs The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58935"].
In family disputes, succession claims, and maintenance petitions, questions like DNA petition citations often arise. Parties seek court-ordered DNA tests to prove or disprove biological relationships, but courts don't grant these lightly. DNA testing is powerful, yet governed by strict principles balancing truth-seeking with privacy rights. This post breaks down the legal framework, drawing from landmark judgments and recent cases.
Disclaimer: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
DNA profiling is scientifically accurate for establishing paternity and forensic links. Courts widely accept it, but emphasize it's not a routine tool. As noted, The result of a genuine DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate. Bhabani Prasad Jena VS Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women - 2010 6 Supreme 247 Similarly, DNA profile is valid and reliable, but variance in a particular result depends on the quality control and quality procedure in the laboratory. Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes (2014)
However, ordering DNA tests requires eminent need and must weigh privacy concerns. Routine orders are discouraged to protect personal liberty.
Courts repeatedly hold that DNA tests cannot be directed as a matter of course or in a routine manner. Bhabani Prasad Jena VS Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women - 2010 6 Supreme 247Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik VS Lata Nandlal Badwaik - 2014 1 Supreme 27 This applies across civil and criminal proceedings.
In Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women, the Supreme Court stated: When there is an apparent conflict between the right to privacy of a person not to submit himself forcibly to medical examination and duty of the court to reach the truth, the court must exercise its discretion only after balancing the interests of the parties. Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik VS Lata Nandlal Badwaik - 2014 1 Supreme 27
Recent cases reinforce this. In a parentage dispute under Section 125 CrPC, the court set aside a DNA order, ruling: a test cannot be ordered as a matter of routine and should only be ordered if a strong prima facie case is made. The burden of proof lies on the litigating party. Vijay Kumar Garg @ Dee Cee Gharianwala VS Kajal @ Nicky - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1152 Similarly, in a succession petition, DNA was not mandated without compelling evidence. Sukhwinder Kaur VS Gurmit Singh - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2543
Section 112 presumes a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate: pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant (he is the father whom the marriage indicates). Banarsi Dass (Shri) VS Teeku Dutta (Mrs. ) - 2005 3 Supreme 569 This throws the burden on the challenger.
DNA can rebut this if scientifically conclusive. The result of DNA test reports show that the appellant is not the biological father of the girl-child. Now we have to consider as to whether the DNA test would be sufficient to hold that the appellant is not the biological father of respondent no. 2, in the face of what has been provided under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik VS Lata Nandlal Badwaik - 2014 1 Supreme 27Kunhiraman VS Manoj - Crimes (1991)
In maintenance cases, courts balance this presumption with science but require strong grounds. Minor Seema Mahato VS Alok Mahato
Privacy is fundamental. Courts caution against tests without justification, as they intrude on personal autonomy. Bhabani Prasad Jena VS Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women - 2010 6 Supreme 247Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik VS Lata Nandlal Badwaik - 2014 1 Supreme 27Alok Gogoi S/o- Late Lila Kanta Gogoi @ Lila Kanta Ahom vs Nirala Gogoi And Anr D/O- Late Lila Kanta Gogoi - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 535
In property disputes, forcing a DNA test on unwilling parties impinges on liberty: When plaintiff is unwilling to subject himself to DNA test, forcing him to undergo one would impinge on his personal liberty and his right to privacy. Palaniraj VS Vellaichamy - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 394 A delayed DNA application in a partition suit was dismissed at the final stage. Shanta Devi @ Lad Devi W/o Sh. Mahendra Kumar @ Mahendra Singh Khabya (Jain) VS Lad Devi W/o Late Sh. Mahendra Kumar @ Mahendra Singh Khabya (Jain) - 2019 Supreme(Raj) 519
Yet, in criminal matters like POCSO cases, DNA is vital: DNA evidence collection is vital in POCSO cases. Further investigation for DNA was upheld despite procedural lapses. Kanickaraj vs Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 69794
In one case, a trial court ordered DNA during trial for paternity proof in a cheating/rape matter, upheld on appeal. Kokkirigadda Devaraj VS State of A. P. - 2018 Supreme(AP) 925
Second tests rare; prior reports stand unless flawed. K. Perumal VS S. Shakiladevi - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 4301
DNA tests illuminate biological truth but courts wield them judiciously. Guided by 'eminent need', privacy safeguards, and statutes like Section 112, orders are exceptional, not routine. From succession denials Banarsi Dass (Shri) VS Teeku Dutta (Mrs. ) - 2005 3 Supreme 569 to criminal imperatives Kanickaraj vs Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 69794, precedents ensure fairness.
Key Takeaways:- DNA is reliable but not automatic. Bhabani Prasad Jena VS Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women - 2010 6 Supreme 247- Prove necessity; respect presumptions. Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik VS Lata Nandlal Badwaik - 2014 1 Supreme 27- Privacy first, truth second—unless justice demands otherwise.
Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence. For personalized guidance, contact a legal professional.
#DNATestIndia, #FamilyLaw, #CourtOrders
Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the applicant while buttressing his contention, has relied upon the following citations in his favour :- (i) Nand Lal Wasudeo Badwaik Vs. ... In paragraph no.12 of the petition, it has been mentioned that opposite party no.2 was leading adulterous life as counter allegation upon the chastity of his wife, and, therefore, in a most clandestine fashion without taking consent of opposite party no.2, Ms. Shazia Parveen or her daughter Km. ... The Court has given direction to conduct her DNA test. ... The....
petition. ... It is clarified that, if the petitioner refuses to undergo a DNA test, the Trial Court shall draw an adverse inference against him. The review petition is devoid of any merit and is consequently dismissed. ... The 2nd respondent in the review petition, the mother of the 1st respondent, was the 2nd respondent in the original petition. For convenience, the parties are referred to by their status in the review petition. ... The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reite....
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. ... It is not in dispute that when the trial was in part-heard stage, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. seeking further investigation alleging that DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) test was not at all conducted. 4. ... Item No.1 gauze piece is kept in records of MDU/DNA/207/2022, that the prosecution has then come to know that FTA (Flinders Technology Associates) card was not at all collected from RFSL till date, that the report of....
It is not in dispute that when the trial was in part-heard stage, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. seeking further investigation alleging that DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) test was not at all conducted. ... Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. ... No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was not given any notice in respect to the petition in M.P.No.1 of 2024 nor was given any opportunity to oppose the sa....
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the Order of the Trial Court ordering for DNA Test in the suit proceedings. Hence, the revision-petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. ... Roopa @ Gangalakshmi and Another in Writ Petition No. 22273 of 2022 (GM-FC), dated 16.11.2022. 7. Sri T.V. ... Parties in this revision-petition are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the Trial Court. 5. Ms. M. ... , when already a DNA Test was conducted, withou....
This revision petition is allowed accordingly. ... Teeku Dutta, 2005(4) SCC 449 had declared that DNA test is not to be directed as a matter of routine but only in deserving cases. A petition was filed in that case for grant of succession certificate in respect of properties of the deceased. ... That application has been allowed by the Court by way of the impugned order dated 07.05.2018, which has been assailed by way of the present petition. 3. ... unwillingness to get the DNA test conducted. ... Pet....
In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 21.12.2022 ordering the DNA test is set aside and the application for DNA test (Annexure P/3) stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. Petition allowed. ... Hence, the present revision petition. 3. ... The present revision petition has been preferred by the defendant No.1-petitioner against the impugned order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Co....
In that original petition, the respondent filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 for an order to conduct a DNA test of the child to ascertain whether he is the biological father of the child for the reason that there are rumours that he is not the father. The Family Court allowed that petition. ... A report of DNA examination is quite unnecessary in such a case. The Family Court ought not to have allowed I.A.No.2 of 2022. Ext.P8 order therefore is liable to be set aside. Accordingly this original petition is allowed. ....
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. ... In the result, the Original Petition is dismissed. ... 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 tha....
Teeku Dutta, (2005) 4 SCC 449] had declared that DNA test is not to be directed as a matter of routine but only in deserving cases. A petition was filed in that case for grant of succession certificate in respect of properties of the deceased. ... The present civil revision petition, which is wholly devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. ... Hence, the present revision petition. 3. ... The present revision petition has been preferred by th....
To prove the said fact, the petition in I.A.No.251 of 2016 in O.S.No50 of 2014 was filed for DNA test. 8. As per the case of the revision petitioners/Defendant Nos.1 & 3, the mother of the revision petitioners married one Chokkalinga Chettiar even during the life time of Krishnasamy Naicker and gave birth to plaintiffs.
Therefore, in my considered view, the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner plaintiffs. (a) Firstly, the petitioner has filed the application for DNA test and for taking on record the DNA Test Report of the respondent Nos. 8. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons:
Since the paternity of the second respondent was being questioned, a criminal miscellaneous petition was filed i.e., Crl.M.P.No.1005 of 2015, seeking for DNA test. Both the parties were directed to appear before the Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore. The said Criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed. But, according to the petitioner, he was not a biological father.
Though the Investigating Officer conducted ossification test, he did not conduct DNA test or blood grouping test. At that stage a petition was filed before the trial Court for ordering DNA test for proving paternity of the issues born to the defacto complainant through the accused. The trial Judge by his order dated 24.07.2003 directed the Investigating Officer to get ossification test of the complainant and also take steps for DNA test after determining the blood group of the victim lady, her two children and accused.
It is further submitted that the prosecutrix namely the mother of the minor petitioner gave birth to the present petitioner as a result of such continuous cohabitation with opposite party no. 1 could have answered the dispute of parentage of the minor petitioner. 3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that an application for DNA test and DNA mapping for such minor petitioner along with the opposite party no.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
