Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Anusha Kumari W/o Rohan VS Rohan Son of Mohan Prasad Sinha...
2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 441 : A court may direct a DNA test of a minor child in matrimonial disputes only under the following circumstances: (i) when there is no other mode of proving the allegations of infidelity; (ii) when there is sufficient prima facie material to dislodge the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act; (iii) when a plea of non-access has been raised to rebut the presumption under Section 112; (iv) when the paternity of the child is directly in issue and not merely collateral to the proceeding; (v) when the court finds it impossible to draw an inference based on the evidence led, or when the controversy cannot be resolved without a DNA test; and (vi) only in exceptional and deserving cases where such a test becomes indispensable to resolve the controversy. Additionally, courts must be mindful of the consequences of such tests on the child, including social stigma and inheritance-related implications.Checking relevance for Bipin Kumar Singh VS Pushpa Devi...
2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 56 : A court may direct the parties to undergo a DNA test when a prima facie case is made out, particularly in circumstances where there is a dispute regarding paternity, especially when the petitioner has alleged impotency and the respondent has not resided with the petitioner yet a child was born during the marriage. The court may consider the conduct of the parties, such as the petitioner’s willingness to undergo the test and the respondent’s reluctance despite agreeing to send the child for testing. The DNA test is considered the most scientifically precise method to determine paternity, especially in cases where a child is claimed to be the petitioner’s despite allegations of impotency, and where the dispute has significant consequences such as affecting service records or pension rights. However, the court will not grant such an order if the petitioner fails to establish a strong prima facie case, particularly if the application is made long after the divorce petition was filed, or if there is no credible proof of impotence or consent from the respondent.Checking relevance for Amarjit Kaur VS Harbhajan Singh...
Checking relevance for Aparna Ajinkya Firodia VS Ajinkya Arun Firodia...
2023 3 Supreme 418 : A court may direct a DNA test only in exceptional and deserving cases where such a test becomes indispensable to resolve the controversy. Specifically, DNA tests of children born during the subsistence of a valid marriage may be directed only when there is sufficient prima-facie material to dislodge the presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court must not mechanically direct a DNA test in cases where the paternity of a child is not directly in issue but is merely collateral to the proceeding. Additionally, the court must consider the consequences of such a test, including the potential for branding a child as illegitimate and the mother as unchaste, and must be mindful of the child''''s right to privacy, bodily integrity, and protection from social stigma. The test should not be ordered routinely in matrimonial disputes, and the party seeking the test must establish a strong prima facie case of non-access to rebut the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112. The court must also ensure that the test is not used as a fishing expedition or for ulterior motives, and that the child is not treated as a mere object in litigation.Checking relevance for Ashok Kumar VS Raj Gupta...
2021 6 Supreme 570 : A court can direct a party to undergo a DNA test only in deserving cases, not as a matter of routine. The test should be ordered only when there is a strong prima facie case and the court determines that it is necessary for a just decision, satisfying the test of ''''eminent need''''. The court must balance the quest for truth with the social, cultural, and privacy implications, especially given that Indian law leans towards legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy. The presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be lightly repelled and requires strong preponderance of evidence, not merely a balance of probabilities. DNA testing should be avoided when other evidence is available to prove or dispute the relationship. The court cannot compel a party to provide a DNA sample, particularly when the party has already adduced sufficient evidence and is unwilling to undergo the test, as it would infringe upon the right to privacy and personal liberty. The decision to order a DNA test must also consider the proportionality of the measure, especially in light of the constitutional right to privacy established in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.Checking relevance for Ivan Rathinam VS Milan Joseph...
2025 3 Supreme 600 : A court may direct parties to undergo a DNA test only if a strong prima facie case of non-access is made out, supported by sufficient material placed before the court to dislodge the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court must also be satisfied that ordering the DNA test is in the best interests of the child and that there is no undue harm to the parties involved. Additionally, the law permits only a preliminary enquiry into a person’s private life through evidence of non-access; if such evidence is insufficient to rebut the presumption of legitimacy, the court cannot order a DNA test. The test is not permissible merely on the basis of suspicion or the desire to ascertain truth without meeting these conditions.
