Delhi High Court’s Ruling reaffirms Judicial Restraint in ordering DNA Tests and Protects the sanctity of family relations and the dignity of children: Nathu VS State in CRL. A. 242/2023

 

INTRODUCTION

This judgment by the Delhi High Court addresses the evidentiary value of DNA tests in determining paternity in the context of matrimonial disputes. The case revolves around a petitioner-husband seeking a DNA test of the child born during the subsistence of marriage, alleging infidelity by the respondent-wife. The Court was tasked with balancing the right to privacy and dignity of the child and mother with the interest of justice and the rights of the petitioner.

---

SUMMARY

The petitioner-husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing cruelty and desertion. He alleged that his wife had illicit relations with another man and that the child born during their marriage was not his. He sought a DNA test of the child under Section 151 of the CPC.

The Family Court dismissed the petition, holding that a DNA test cannot be ordered merely on bald allegations of infidelity without strong prima facie evidence. The husband appealed this order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court's decision, observing that ordering a DNA test in the absence of strong evidence would infringe upon the child's right to privacy and dignity, especially since the child was born during the subsistence of a valid marriage and hence presumed legitimate under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

---

ANALYSIS OF PRECEDENT CITED

The Court referred to and relied upon multiple landmark decisions:

1. Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993)

   • Laid down that courts should not order blood tests as a routine and should not compel a person to give a sample unless there is strong prima facie evidence.

2. Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014)

   • Supreme Court allowed a DNA test based on strong evidence and held that scientific evidence (DNA) can override statutory presumptions.

3. Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta (2005)

   • Reiterated the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act.

4. Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015)

   • Allowed a DNA test when there were compelling reasons and the husband had produced material justifying suspicion.

The Delhi High Court harmonized these judgments, stressing that DNA testing must be approached cautiously, especially when the legitimacy of a child is questioned.

---

RELEVANT SECTIONS

• Section 112 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
  Presumption of legitimacy of a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage.

• Section 151 – Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):
  Inherent powers of the court.

• Article 227 – Constitution of India:
  Supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts over subordinate courts.

---

IMPACT

This judgment reinforces the principle that the legitimacy and privacy of a child must not be lightly jeopardized. It places a high threshold on seeking DNA testing, preventing frivolous or malicious attempts to delegitimize children or harass spouses without credible evidence. It also upholds the judicial trend of balancing rights—between a petitioner’s right to truth and a child’s right to dignity and privacy.

---

COMPLEX CONCEPT SIMPLIFIED

• Presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act:
  If a child is born during the continuance of a valid marriage, it is presumed to be legitimate unless it is shown that there was no access between the husband and wife at the time of conception. This presumption is very strong and can only be rebutted with convincing evidence.

• When DNA tests are allowed:
  DNA tests can only be ordered when there is substantial material pointing towards infidelity. Mere suspicion or bald allegations do not suffice.

---

CONCLUSION

The Delhi High Court’s ruling reaffirms judicial restraint in ordering DNA tests and protects the sanctity of family relations and the dignity of children. It highlights the Court’s duty to prevent misuse of legal procedures under the guise of seeking justice. The judgment aligns with the broader judicial philosophy that personal privacy and the welfare of the child must be paramount unless compelling evidence demands otherwise.