DNA Test Cannot Be Ordered Routinely Without Strong Prima Facie Case, Court Imposes Rs. 50,000 Costs on Husband for Frivolous Plea
In a significant judgment delivered on October 9, 2026, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) dismissed a criminal revision filed by K. Kamaraj challenging the trial court's refusal to direct a DNA test on his minor son in ongoing domestic violence proceedings filed by his wife, Susai Ammal @ Susai Malar. The Court reiterated the legal principle that DNA testing to disprove paternity cannot be ordered as a matter of routine and must be preceded by the husband establishing a strong prima facie case of non-access, especially where there is an unexplained delay and no corroborative evidence.
The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on November 24, 2008, and they have a male child named Kalaiarasan. The respondent wife initiated domestic violence proceedings in 2013, which were subsequently renumbered and transferred to the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Kalasapakkam. After a lapse of nearly a decade, in 2023, the husband filed an application under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking DNA testing to prove that the child was not his biological offspring. The trial court dismissed the petition on December 1, 2023, holding that there was no material to establish non-access during the relevant period.
Upholding this order, the High Court observed that Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, creates a strong statutory presumption that a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage is legitimate unless the husband proves non-access at the time of conception. The Court found that the petitioner had failed to discharge this burden, as no documentary or other evidence was produced to suggest non-access with the respondent. Moreover, the delay of over ten years in seeking the DNA test was deemed inordinate and unexplained, severely undermining the genuineness of the petitioner's claim.
The Court underscored the intrusive nature of DNA testing, emphasizing that it implicates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution-protection against self-incrimination, privacy, and dignity. Drawing from Supreme Court precedents such as Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025) and Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Court reiterated that DNA tests cannot be ordered routinely and that courts must exercise caution considering the potential harm to the child's right to identity and the mother's privacy. The child cannot be used as a pawn to prove allegations of adultery or infidelity.
Further, the Court referenced the Bombay High Court's ruling in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023), which held that a DNA test is not the sole method to prove infidelity and that other evidence like call records or diaries could be relied upon. The Court also noted that the petitioner's application appeared to be a frivolous attempt to humiliate the wife and to protract the domestic violence and maintenance proceedings.
In consequence, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner, directing the amount to be deposited with the trial court and paid to the respondent wife. The Court ordered the Registry to forward a copy of its judgment to the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate for compliance.
This ruling sends a strong message that courts will protect the privacy and dignity of individuals involved in sensitive domestic matters, resist misuse of scientific tests without adequate foundation, and uphold the statutory presumption of legitimacy to safeguard the interests of the child.
Bottom Line:
DNA test to disprove paternity in domestic violence proceedings cannot be ordered as a matter of routine - Husband must first establish a strong prima facie case of non-access - Long and unexplained delay, absence of supporting material, statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 116 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and privacy concerns justify refusal of DNA test - Frivolous attempt to humiliate wife warrants costs.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 112, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 116, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; Sections 438 and 442, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Articles 20(3) and 21, Constitution of India
K.Kamaraj v. Susai Ammal @ Susai Malar, (Madras)(Madurai Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2997223
