Court reiterates Section 12 of PWDV Act is for adjudication of domestic violence claims and not for determining biological parentage; DNA tests cannot be ordered routinely without prima facie proof of non-access between spouses.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 26, 2026, the Kerala High Court dismissed a petition challenging a Magistrate's order refusing to direct a DNA test of a minor child in domestic violence maintenance proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act). The petitioner, Sunil, sought a DNA examination to disprove his paternity of the minor child born to the respondent, Salini, and others. However, the Court upheld the Magistrate's decision, emphasizing that proceedings under the PWDV Act are intended for adjudicating allegations of domestic violence and granting statutory reliefs rather than determining biological parentage.
The petitioner's claim was founded on an assertion that he was not the biological father of the child and that the respondent had consented to a DNA test during mediation. The Court clarified that mere consent during mediation cannot compel the Court to order DNA testing if it is contrary to law or public policy. It underscored that the objective of Section 12 proceedings is not to ascertain paternity but to resolve domestic violence claims.
The Court applied Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides a presumption of legitimacy for a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage unless there is prima facie evidence of non-access between the spouses during the relevant period. Since the marital relationship between the parties was admitted and there was no material on record establishing non-access, the presumption favoring the child's legitimacy operated.
The Court observed that DNA tests cannot be ordered routinely on allegations disputing paternity. Such tests may be directed only in appropriate cases where the Court finds it necessary for proper adjudication and where there is prima facie evidence of non-access during the relevant period. Without this, evidence aimed at disproving paternity of a child born within marriage is impermissible.
This ruling reiterates the importance of protecting the legitimacy of children born in wedlock as a matter of public policy and highlights the limited scope of DNA testing in domestic violence proceedings under the PWDV Act. It also emphasizes the independent role of the Court in assessing the necessity and legality of DNA examinations, notwithstanding any consensual agreements reached during mediation.
The petition was thus dismissed, affirming the Magistrate's order and providing clarity on the interplay between domestic violence proceedings and paternity disputes.
Bottom Line:
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Proceedings under Section 12 are meant for adjudication of domestic violence allegations and grant of statutory reliefs, not for determination of biological parentage - DNA test to disprove paternity cannot be ordered as a matter of course in absence of prima facie proof of non-access between spouses - Mere consent during mediation cannot compel court to order DNA examination contrary to law or public policy.
Statutory provision(s):
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 112
