The Kerala High Court has ruled that courts cannot routinely direct a minor child to undergo DNA profiling to determine paternity unless there is preliminary proof showing that the spouses had no access to one another during the period of conception.
Justice Jobin Sebastian delivered the decision on September 26 while dismissing a petition by a husband who sought to challenge a trial court order that had turned down his plea for a genetic test. The high court affirmed that a simple allegation questioning fatherhood does not entitle a litigant to a court-mandated DNA examination as a matter of course.
Legal Scope of Domestic Violence Proceedings
The dispute originated from a complaint initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. A woman and her minor child had approached the magistrate seeking monetary maintenance alongside the return of the woman’s gold ornaments.
During the pendency of the domestic violence case, the husband denied being the biological father of the child. He filed an application requesting genetic profiling, asserting that the test results would prove his claim. He also maintained that the mother had previously consented to the test during mediation talks. The magistrate dismissed the plea, prompting the husband to appeal before the high court.
In its assessment, the high court noted that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act exist specifically to examine allegations of domestic abuse and provide statutory remedies, rather than to serve as a forum for determining biological parentage.
Presumption of Child Legitimacy
Justice Sebastian observed that the validity of the marriage between the two parties remained uncontested. Under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, the law establishes a conclusive presumption favoring the legitimacy of any child born during a valid marriage.
The court explained that this provision represents a foundational principle of public policy aimed at safeguarding the child’s status. Consequently, courts cannot allow evidence to rebut paternity unless the party disputing it first establishes a prima facie case of non-access during the possible time of conception.
Limits of Mediation Agreements
The high court also rejected the husband’s contention regarding mediation, stating that an informal understanding or consensus reached during alternate dispute resolution cannot obligate a court to mandate a medical procedure.
The ruling specified that judges may order a DNA test only in deserving situations where the procedure is legally permissible, justified by the facts, and essential to resolve the matter. The court highlighted that private agreements between litigants cannot bind the judiciary to issue directives contrary to law or established public policy.
Because the husband presented no preliminary evidence demonstrating non-access between the spouses, the high court concluded that the legal presumption of legitimacy remained fully operational, upholding the magistrate’s refusal and dismissing the petition.
