The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld a trial court’s decision to reject a plea for a DNA test to determine paternity in a maintenance case, citing a lack of a strong prima facie case, an inordinate delay of nearly two decades, and the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Justice Shamim Ahmed held that ordering such a test without sufficient legal justification would infringe upon the respondent’s fundamental right to privacy.
Background of the Case
The Criminal Revision Case was filed by a man, who had recently attained majority, challenging an order dated 22.07.2025, by the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi. The petitioner, initially represented by his mother, had filed a maintenance case (MC.No.26 of 2022) against the respondent.
The petitioner’s mother alleged that although she was legally married to a man who passed away on 07.10.2020, the petitioner, born on 21.01.2006, was conceived through physical relations with the respondent “by threat and coercion, on several occasions.” During the maintenance proceedings, an application was filed under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, seeking a DNA test to establish the petitioner’s paternity.
The Judicial Magistrate had dismissed this application, citing a lack of sufficient cause, a strong prima facie case, and supporting materials. The Magistrate also noted the long, unexplained delay in approaching the court and the petitioner’s own declarations in other legal documents. It was against this dismissal that the petitioner filed the current revision case before the High Court.
The court noted that in all official records, school documents, and even in a bail bond furnished by the petitioner in a separate criminal case (Cr.No. 126 of 2025), the father’s name was declared as that of his mother’s late husband.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent was biologically responsible for the petitioner’s birth and was therefore accountable for his maintenance. He submitted that a DNA test was essential to establish the petitioner’s biological heritage and would bring closure to the matter, asserting that the petitioner’s future depended on its outcome. The counsel further contended that the petitioner should not be “penalised for the mistakes or errors of his mother” in taking timely legal action to protect his rights.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Shamim Ahmed, in a detailed analysis, framed the central legal question as the balance between the use of scientific techniques for fair adjudication and the preservation of individual rights, particularly the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Inordinate and Unexplained Delay
The court heavily underscored the delay in the proceedings. It observed that the petitioner was born in 2006, but the maintenance case was filed only in 2022, after the death of his mother’s husband in 2020. The court termed this an “inordinate delay of more than 15 years.” Furthermore, the application for the DNA test was itself filed more than two years after the initiation of the maintenance case, for which “No satisfactory explanation has been given by the Petitioner”. The court also pointed out that despite alleging physical relations by force, the petitioner’s mother never filed a complaint with any authority against the respondent, and her “complete silence over two decades only raises further doubts on the genuineness of claim”.
Presumption of Legitimacy under Section 116 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
The court placed significant reliance on Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which establishes a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage. This presumption can only be rebutted by proving that the parties to the marriage had “no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotton.” The court found that the petitioner had “failed to establish non-access” between his mother and her late husband during the relevant period.
Lack of a Prima Facie Case
The High Court observed a complete absence of supporting evidence from the petitioner. It stated, “the Petitioner has not produced a single piece of documentary evidence before this Court to even prima facie support his claim that the Respondent is the biological father of the Petitioner.” The court held that DNA tests cannot be ordered on “vague allegations unless a strong prima facie case is established.”
Reliance on Supreme Court Judgments
The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph, (2025 INSC 115), which held that “DNA tests cannot be directed, unless a strong prima facie case is made out and that such tests should not be ordered as a matter of routine.” The judgment further cautioned that “Courts must be cautious in directing DNA tests, as such orders can have far reaching effects on the dignity and privacy of individuals.”
Justice Ahmed also extensively quoted from Smt. Selvi and others vs. State of Karnataka, where the Supreme Court held that the compulsory administration of such scientific techniques violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and constitutes an “unjustified intrusion into the mental privacy of an individual.” The apex court had concluded, “no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question… Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty.”
Applying these principles, the High Court concluded that a DNA test in this case would infringe upon the fundamental rights of the respondent.
Decision
The High Court found that the petitioner had failed to establish a prima facie case for directing a DNA test. The court stated, “The long and unexplained delay of nearly two decades, absence of any documentary or supporting material, the legal presumption of legitimacy under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and the privacy concerns involved all weigh heavily against the claim of the Petitioner.”
Finding no merit in the revision case, the court affirmed the trial court’s order as a “reasoned and speaking order” and dismissed the petition.
