Right of Children to Establish Biological Parentage Through DNA Testing Overrides Apprehension of Parental Reputational Harm

The Petitioner challenged a Family Court order directing a DNA test to determine the paternity of Respondents 2 to 4

Respondent 1 (Geeta Devi) alleged she married the Petitioner in 1991 and bore three children (Respondents 2–4). She produced photographs of the marriage and birthdays, voter IDs, and school records naming the Petitioner as the father

The Petitioner denied the relationship, claiming he has been married to Smt. Kumkum Devi since 1986 and resides in Bihar, never having lived in Delhi

A Bihar Family Court previously declared Kumkum Devi his legal wife

The Petitioner argued that the maintenance claim was a political conspiracy to malign his family, given his wife's public office

1. Whether the Family Court is justified in ordering a DNA test when the legality of the marriage is disputed and the Petitioner claims a lack of access to the mother

2. Whether the right of a child to know their biological parentage and identity outweighs an adult’s interest in avoiding reputational harm or social embarrassment

The court applied Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding expert scientific evidence, and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., noting that even illegitimate children are entitled to maintenance

It relied on Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, establishing that while DNA tests aren't routine, they are permissible if a strong prima facie case exists

It further integrated principles from Chaturbhuj Pradhan v. Amar Pradhan (2024), holding that a DNA test is necessary when paternity is "directly in issue" and other evidence cannot provide a categorical answer

The court also distinguished Section 112 of the Evidence Act, noting that the presumption of legitimacy was not the primary barrier here as the Petitioner himself asserted the children were born outside his valid marriage

The Court found that Respondent 1 provided sufficient prima facie evidence, including school records, public documents, and landlady testimony (PW-2), to suggest cohabitation and parentage

The Court reasoned that since the Petitioner categorically denied both marriage and paternity, a DNA test was the only scientific method to resolve the foundational dispute for the maintenance claim

It rejected the Petitioner's "reputational harm" argument, noting that if the Petitioner truly had no access to the mother, the DNA test would vindicate him

The Court emphasized that personal autonomy to enter relationships carries a "corresponding obligation of accountability"

It determined that the "constitutional conscience" must prioritize the children’s right to identity over an adult's desire to erase a "chapter of his life" to protect a current social standing

The Court held that when paternity is the central issue in a maintenance proceeding, the best interests of the children to know their biological origins and seek legal support outweigh an adult's privacy or reputational concerns

The Court directed the parties to appear before the HOD Forensic Medicines, BSA Hospital, for sample collection as per the impugned order