Back
Rajasthan HC Directs 93-Year-Old Woman to Undergo DNA Test in Rare Maternity Denial Over Ancestral Property
Introduction
In a landmark ruling on evidentiary gaps in family law, the
has set aside a trial court's refusal to order a DNA test, directing a 93-year-old woman to undergo testing to determine if she is the mother of the petitioner in a dispute over ancestral property. The bench, led by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Gupta, emphasized the absence of statutory presumptions for maternity under the
and
, terming the case a
"
"
instance where a mother denies her child. The petitioner, Smt. Bhauri Devi, claims entitlement to half her late father's share, challenging a
will that purportedly bequeaths the property to others.
Case Background
The dispute centers on ancestral agricultural land in Jaipur, originally held by the petitioner's alleged father, Shri Badri, who passed away in . Part of the land was acquired for the Central Spine Scheme by , resulting in allotment letters for eight plots to Badri. In , Badri registered a will favoring respondent Mahendra Kumar, which the petitioner contests as invalid since ancestral property cannot be willed away under Hindu law. Smt. Bhauri Devi filed Civil Suit No. 77/ on , seeking declaration of the will as null and void, along with her half share and that of her alleged mother, respondent Smt. Bila Devi.
The suit was opposed by respondents Mahendra Kumar (beneficiary of the will), Smt. Bila Devi (widow of Badri, aged 93), and Ramswaroop (claiming to be Badri's son). Critically, Smt. Bila Devi denied that Smt. Bhauri Devi is her daughter or Badri's, asserting only Ramswaroop as their child. To resolve whether Smt. Bhauri Devi is indeed the daughter—framed as Issue No. 5 in the suit—she applied under for DNA testing of herself, Smt. Bila Devi, and Ramswaroop. The trial court, , rejected this on , citing privacy concerns and the respondents' refusal. This led to the writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5426/2022, heard and decided on .
The core legal questions were: (1) Can a court order DNA testing to establish maternity in the absence of documentary proof? (2) Does privacy under bar such orders? (3) What presumptions apply when maternity, unlike paternity, lacks statutory backing?
Arguments Presented
The petitioner's counsel, , assisted by others, argued that DNA testing is the only conclusive scientific method to prove maternity, especially since the petitioner is illiterate and lacks documents. They highlighted Smt. Bila Devi's denial under pressure from other respondents and noted no prior explicit refusal to test. The application targeted Issue No. 5 and questioned Ramswaroop's sonship, as no records confirm it. Reliance was placed on precedents like Narayan Dutt Tiwari v. Rohit Shekhar (2012) 12 SCC 554, affirming DNA's reliability in parentage disputes, and Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik ( ) 2 SCC 576, where scientific evidence overrides presumptions.
Respondents' counsel, including , countered that ordering DNA would infringe privacy rights, as affirmed in R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha (2025 INSC 1304) and Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta (2022) 1 SCC 20. They argued the burden lies on the petitioner to prove daughterhood first, and the suit's primary issue is the will's validity over ancestral property, not parentage. Ramswaroop's sonship needed no proof via DNA, as Smt. Bila Devi affirmed it. A prior criminal rejection of similar application on , was cited to dismiss the need.
Legal Analysis
Justice Bipin Gupta's reasoning underscored the unique maternity dispute, distinguishing it from common paternity challenges. The court noted Smt. Bila Devi admits marriage to Badri but denies the child, framing it as a maternity issue under
and 116 (BSA, 2023), which presume paternity for children born during marriage or within 280 days post-dissolution but ignore maternal denial. The legislature overlooked such scenarios, creating a
"vacuum"
where children face evidentiary hurdles in a materialistic world.
Drawing on
Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy
(2015) 1 SCC 365, the court balanced privacy (Article 21) against truth-seeking, holding DNA tests cannot be routine but are warranted by
"
"
after
assessment. Unlike
Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal
(1993) 3 SCC 418 (against roving inquiries), here strong evidence of denial justified it.
Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik
(supra) was pivotal: scientific DNA proof prevails over rebuttable presumptions under Section 112/116 when access or legitimacy is unchallenged but biology disputed.
On privacy, no force is permissible, but refusal triggers presumption under /119 (BSA, 2023), Illustration (h)— if one refuses a non-compulsory answer. This preserves privacy while aiding justice, as in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary (2010) 8 SCC 633. The court rejected testing Ramswaroop, placing the burden on him to prove sonship. Other cited cases like Neelam Rani v. Mainka ( ) and Dalip Singh v. Ramesh ( ) reinforced DNA's role in civil parentage suits.
Key Observations
The judgment featured poignant observations on societal norms and legal evolution:
-
"This Court is astonished by the fact that a mother denying a child to be hers is a
cases, as in society it is usually the male who denies the paternity of a child on many grounds, including alleged infidelity of the wife."
-
"When there is no statutory presumption in respect of a woman under the said provisions, how a person born to a female is to prove that the woman whom he or she claims to be his or her mother is, in fact, the natural mother."
-
"In the modern world, where everything has become materialistic, it is easy to admit or deny the parenthood of a child. However, it is extremely difficult for a child to prove that a particular person is his or her parent…With significant advancements in science, not only paternity but also maternity can now be conclusively determined through DNA testing."
-
"A person cannot be forced to undergo a paternity or maternity test, but a direction can be issued... If anyone does not appear for the DNA test or denies to undergo the test then, the issue would be determined by the Court by drawing a presumption... under
[or]
."
Court's Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the trial court's , order and partly granting the Order 26 Rule 10A application. It directed the trial court to order Smt. Bila Devi to undergo DNA testing matched with Smt. Bhauri Devi's to ascertain maternity. If she refuses, presumptions under Section 119 BSA (Illustration h) shall favor the petitioner, potentially deeming her claim true.
This ruling has broad implications: it fills a legislative void by endorsing DNA for maternity in civil suits, especially property claims, without forcing tests but penalizing refusals via adverse inferences. Future cases involving maternal denials—rare but rising in inheritance disputes—may rely on it to prioritize science over outdated presumptions, aiding vulnerable, illiterate claimants while respecting privacy limits.
