DNA test for paternity cannot be ordered routinely without establishing marriage and obtaining the child's consent.

The Petitioner (defendant) challenged an order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the Family Court, Vadodara, which directed him to undergo a DNA test to determine the paternity of Respondent No. 2.

The original suit was filed in 1994 by Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, seeking maintenance for herself and her then 15-month-old daughter (Respondent No. 2).

Despite high court directions in 1996 to dispose of the suit by 1998, the plaintiff filed the application for a DNA test (Exh. 217) only in 2010.

By the time of this judgment, Respondent No. 2 was 32 years old, married, and residing in the USA.

The petitioner, now 78 years old and suffering from severe health issues including leg amputation, contested the order on grounds of privacy and lack of legal necessity.

1. Whether the Family Court was justified in directing a DNA test in a routine manner without considering the right to privacy and the test of proportionality.

2. Whether the direction for a DNA test for Respondent No. 2 (now a major) could be sustained without her explicit consent and in light of her having lost the right to maintenance due to her age and marital status.

The court primarily applied Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the presumption of legitimacy.

It relied on the constitutional right to privacy and the "test of proportionality" established in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.

Regarding the timing and necessity of DNA tests, the court applied principles from Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta, which cautions against ordering tests at late stages or as fishing expeditions.

DNA tests should not be ordered as a matter of course but only when there is an "eminent need" and after balancing the right to privacy against the quest for truth, as per R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha, Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, and Bhabani Prasad Jena.

The Court reasoned that DNA profiling is a highly intrusive procedure that impacts an individual’s personal autonomy and privacy.

It found that the Family Court erred by ordering the test in a "routine manner" without evaluating the "eminent need" or the societal consequences for Respondent No. 2.

Crucially, the Court noted that Respondent No. 2 is now an adult and her consent was never obtained for a test that reveals sensitive health and familial information.

Since the suit was for maintenance and Respondent No. 2 has surpassed the age and status required to claim such relief under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the determination of paternity via DNA was deemed redundant.

The court also highlighted the suspicious timing of the application, filed 16 years after the suit commenced and before the plaintiff had even led evidence to prove the factum of marriage.

The direction was disproportionate given the subsequent developments where Respondent No. 2's right to maintenance had likely become infructuous.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the Family Court's order dated 11.05.2012, directing the Family Court to proceed with the remaining suit proceedings expeditiously.