The High Court of Karnataka has set aside a Family Court order that mandated a DNA test to determine the paternity of a minor child in a maintenance petition. In its decision delivered on November 3, 2026, the Court ruled that directing a genetic test without first exhausting existing evidentiary methods constitutes an improper exercise of judicial discretion. The ruling emphasizes that the mere admission of a past physical relationship between parties does not serve as a sufficient legal foundation to bypass established safeguards regarding privacy and bodily autonomy.

The case originated from a maintenance petition filed by a minor girl, represented by her mother, in the Principal Judge’s Family Court in Bengaluru. The respondent, Filix Miller, was identified as the father, a claim he denied. During the initial proceedings, the Family Court allowed an interlocutory application submitted by the respondent’s side under Section 45 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, ordering both the minor child and the petitioner to provide blood samples for DNA profiling. The father challenged this decision, arguing that the court failed to establish a strong prima facie case for paternity and ignored the potential for a "fishing and roving enquiry" into personal matters.

In the proceedings before Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, counsel for the petitioner argued that the Family Court’s decision was arbitrary and contrary to settled Supreme Court precedents. The petitioner asserted that DNA tests, due to their highly invasive nature and potential to impact a child's legitimacy, must only be ordered when "eminent need" is proven. The defense pointed out that a previous attempt to obtain a DNA order in a related civil suit had already been rejected, and that the mother’s inconsistent legal positions suggested a lack of bona fide intent. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the court relied prematurely on an alleged admission of acquaintance, which did not constitute proof of biological paternity.

The legal standard for ordering such tests was a central point of the High Court's scrutiny. Justice Kanneganti noted that while modern scientific advancements provide precise methods for determining biological linkages, they must be balanced against the constitutional right to privacy protected under Article 21. The Court highlighted that the judicial process requires a systematic progression, prioritizing existing evidence—such as documents, witness testimony, or surrounding circumstances—before resorting to biological testing.

Addressing the necessity of this procedure, the High Court observed: "The court must first consider whether the existing evidence is sufficient to resolve the controversy. Only then should the evidence be found insufficient should DNA examination be considered." This instruction clarifies that scientific testing is intended as a measure of last resort rather than an initial investigative tool. The Court further remarked on the limitations of using the child’s welfare as a blanket justification for bypassing procedural due process , noting that, "The welfare of the child, important as it is, cannot be treated as a substitute for the judicial inquiry required before directing DNA examination."

The High Court also addressed the contention surrounding the presumption of legitimacy. It noted that if a child is born during the subsistence of a valid marriage, the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act cannot be easily displaced by merely alleging an extra-marital relationship. The burden lies on the party asserting the contrary to prove that there was no access between the mother and her legal spouse during the time of conception. In this instance, the trial court had failed to conduct a preliminary examination of these statutory and factual conditions before issuing the directive for blood samples.

The respondent, representing the minor child, had argued that given the petitioner’s past interactions, financial contributions, and admitted physical relationship with the mother, a DNA test was the most reliable and efficient way to reach the truth. The High Court rejected the notion that efficiency or convenience justifies the invasion of a person's privacy. It clarified that while paternity is indeed relevant to maintenance claims under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure—or the corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha—the court’s duty is to determine liability through evidence that satisfies the test of proportionality and necessity.

The judgment also clarified the impact of prior civil litigation. The Court explained that a refusal to grant a DNA test in a separate, non-related proceeding does not automatically bar a fresh application if the legal context is different, yet it cautioned that the Family Court must still reconcile its current order with the history of the parties' litigation to avoid contradictory outcomes or the abuse of court processes. The High Court stressed that any order for a DNA test must be supported by detailed reasoning that explains why other forms of evidence have failed to clarify the dispute and why the intrusion is necessary for a just resolution.

As a result of these findings, the High Court ordered the matter to be remanded back to the Family Court for a fresh hearing. The lower court has been instructed to reconsider the application by first assessing the validity of the mother's claims, the statutory presumptions in place, and the sufficiency of other available evidence. The Family Court must now formally record whether the "eminent need" test is satisfied before deciding if a DNA test is truly required. Pending interlocutory applications in the case have been closed, and the parties are directed to proceed with the re-evaluation of the evidence as mandated by the High Court's instructions, ensuring that the final determination is grounded in both the law and a proper balancing of the rights involved. The case will return to the Family Court, where the presiding judge will conduct a thorough review of the record, ensuring that the path toward a final order adheres strictly to the principles of proportionality and judicial necessity.