Court emphasizes the importance of "eminent need" and presumption of legitimacy under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in rejecting routine DNA tests in maintenance cases.
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench, under Justice Rajesh Rai K., dismissed a petition seeking to overturn a Family Court's decision that rejected a husband's request for a DNA test in a paternity dispute. The case, Sri B S Srinivas v. Smt. Neelamma @ Manasa and others, highlights the judicial caution exercised in ordering DNA tests, emphasizing the legal presumption of legitimacy and the principle of "eminent need."
The petitioner, Sri B S Srinivas, contested the paternity of his child, Anushka, born within his wedlock with Smt. Neelamma. Despite acknowledging the marital status and a brief period of cohabitation, Srinivas expressed doubts regarding the child's paternity, which he attributed to the absence of continuous cohabitation.
The Family Court had previously rejected his application for a DNA test, filed under Sections 39 and 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, arguing that the request was an attempt to evade maintenance obligations. The High Court concurred with this stance, noting that the presumption of legitimacy under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872), stands unless non-access is proven.
Justice Rajesh Rai K. referenced the Supreme Court's precedent in Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B., which clarifies that courts should not order blood tests routinely but only when a strong prima facie case is established. The judgment underscores that DNA tests should not be used to facilitate a "roving inquiry" and must consider the potential stigma attached to the results.
The court affirmed that without disputing the marital status or establishing a prima facie case of non-access, the request for a DNA test lacks merit. This decision reinforces the judiciary's cautious approach in balancing the scientific determination of paternity with the potential societal implications.
Bottom Line:
DNA test in paternity disputes should not be directed routinely or as a matter of course. Courts must consider the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act (now Section 116 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), the potential consequences, and the test of "eminent need" before ordering such tests.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 116, Section 125 of Cr.P.C., Evidence Act, 1872 Section 112
