DNA Test For Paternity Cannot Be Ordered As Routine When Primary Evidence Is Unexhausted

The Petitioner (plaintiff) filed a civil suit for a declaration that Respondent No. 1 (defendant) is not his biological son and sought a permanent injunction regarding property possession

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 1 is the son of Maheshia (Respondent No. 2), who was the wife or concubine of the Petitioner’s brother, Puran, and denied any relationship with her

Respondent No. 1 claimed paternity based on school records, bank passbooks, Voter ID, and a Social Status Certificate

The Petitioner moved an application under Order 26 Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the CPC for a DNA test, which was rejected by the IInd District Judge, Surajpur, on 19.03.2026

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for a DNA test to determine paternity when a serious question of parentage was raised

2. Whether a DNA test can be ordered in a routine manner when other documentary evidence regarding parentage is available on record

Section 116 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), which establishes a strong presumption of legitimacy for children born during a valid marriage unless "non-access" is proven

Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta and Others (2022) and Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993), which established that a DNA test is not a matter of routine and must only be ordered in cases of "eminent need" where a "strong prima facie case" exists

The principles from Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women were also applied, emphasizing the balancing of interests and the right to privacy

The Court reasoned that a DNA test is an intrusive procedure that impinges upon individual privacy and should be exercised sparingly

It observed that because Respondent No. 1 produced several government documents (Voter ID, Bank Passbook, etc.) naming the Petitioner as his father, there exists alternative evidence to adjudicate the dispute

The Court found the Petitioner’s request premature because the parties had not yet led oral or documentary evidence at trial

The Court held that the burden lies initially on the Petitioner to rebut the presumption of legitimacy through regular evidence; a scientific test cannot be used as a "roving inquiry" before exhausting normal modes of proof

It held that the request for a DNA test was premature at the current stage of the proceedings

The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to move a fresh application at an appropriate stage if, after the recording of evidence, the trial court finds that the controversy cannot be resolved without scientific examination