Husband ordered to pay wife ₹50,000 after court rejects decade-late DNA paternity test plea

The parties married on 24 November 2008 and had a son.

The wife initiated domestic-violence proceedings in 2013, later numbered DVC No. 6 of 2020.

In 2023, the husband applied for a DNA test, asserting that he was not the child’s biological father and that there had been no access between the spouses during the relevant period.

The Magistrate dismissed the application for want of material supporting non-access.

The husband challenged that order in revision.

Whether the husband established a sufficient prima facie basis, including non-access during the relevant period, to justify directing a DNA test to determine the child’s paternity.

Whether the Magistrate’s refusal to order the DNA test warranted interference in revision.

Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage, unless non-access at a time when the child could have been conceived is shown.

Relying on Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal and the Supreme Court’s decision in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, the Court stated that DNA testing is not to be ordered routinely or for a roving inquiry; a strong prima facie case, including proof of non-access sufficient to challenge the presumption, is required, and the court must consider the consequences for the child and the parties’ privacy.

The Court also relied on Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia for the principles that DNA testing should not be used as a shortcut to prove infidelity and that paternity allegations may be pursued through other evidence.

The husband applied for testing in 2023, years after the domestic-violence proceedings began, and gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay.

He produced no material to support his allegation of non-access or otherwise make out a strong prima facie case.

The statutory presumption therefore remained unrebutted, and the Court considered that testing could intrude on privacy and affect the child’s interests; it was not shown to be the only means of resolving the husband’s allegations.

The Court accordingly found no basis to disturb the Magistrate’s decision.

The Court also ordered the husband to pay ₹50,000 in costs to the credit of the domestic-violence case within six weeks, directing that the amount be released to the wife and recovered in accordance with law if unpaid.