Madras High Court Upholds Privacy Rights in Paternity Dispute: DNA Test Denied
Court emphasizes the protection of fundamental rights and presumption of legitimacy in the absence of strong prima facie evidence.
In a landmark ruling, the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench has reaffirmed the protection of fundamental rights and the presumption of legitimacy in a paternity dispute case involving a DNA test request. The court dismissed the revision petition filed by Kandhasamy, seeking a DNA test to challenge the paternity of his child born during his marriage to Magudeeshwari.
Presiding over the case, Justice Shamim Ahmed highlighted the importance of privacy rights under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Indian Constitution, stressing that DNA tests cannot be ordered without substantial evidence. The court observed that such tests should not be used as a shortcut to establish infidelity or paternity without a strong prima facie case.
The case originated from a matrimonial dispute where Kandhasamy sought to disprove the paternity of the child born on December 13, 2009, during his marriage to Magudeeshwari. The marriage was dissolved by mutual consent in 2012, and a subsequent maintenance petition was filed in 2021. However, the DNA test application was filed in 2025, over 12 years after the divorce and 3 years after the maintenance petition, raising concerns of significant delay.
Justice Ahmed emphasized the legal presumption of legitimacy under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which upholds the legitimacy of a child born during a valid marriage unless proven otherwise. The court ruled that Kandhasamy failed to establish non-access or provide documentary evidence to support his claim.
Referencing previous judgments, including the Supreme Court's stance in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, the court reiterated that DNA tests should not be ordered routinely, as they could infringe on individual dignity and privacy. The ruling also cautioned against using the child as a means to prove allegations of adultery.
The court concluded that Kandhasamy's petition lacked merit, noting that the unexplained delay, absence of evidence, and privacy concerns weighed heavily against his claim. The decision reinforces the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding individual rights while ensuring justice in sensitive family matters.
Bottom Line:
DNA test cannot be ordered as a matter of course in cases involving paternity disputes, especially when there is significant delay, absence of prima facie evidence, and potential infringement of privacy rights.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 438, 442; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Section 116; Constitution of India - Articles 20(3), 21
Kandhasamy v. Magudeeshwari, (Madras)(Madurai Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2791049
