The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a Family Court order allowing a DNA test where the husband alleged adultery and proved non-access during conception. The Court clarified that when legitimacy is not questioned and the issue is only adultery, a DNA test can be legally ordered.
JABALPUR: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld a Family Court order permitting a DNA test in a matrimonial dispute where the husband alleged adultery by the wife. The Court made it clear that when no declaration is sought regarding the illegitimacy of the child and the dispute is limited only to examining alleged adultery, a DNA test can be ordered in appropriate cases.
The case arose from a petition filed by the wife challenging a Family Court order that allowed the husband’s request for a Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) test to determine whether the child born during the marriage was biologically his. The husband clarified before the Court that his intention was not to escape responsibility or deny maintenance, but only to establish the truth behind his allegation of adultery.
Justice Vivek Jain observed that courts must carefully balance privacy concerns with the need for justice, especially where serious allegations like adultery are raised with specific pleadings and supporting circumstances. The Court noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that where legitimacy of the child is not directly in issue and the dispute revolves around alleged infidelity, a DNA test may be permitted.
The High Court recorded the factual background in detail and noted:
“In the present case, sufficient pleadings are there in the divorce petition in Para-4 wherein the respondent husband has pleaded that he is in Indian Army and was called in October, 2015 by the wife who is Constable in MP Police. Within four days he was informed that by the wife that she is pregnant and she has conceived a child which could not have been known to the wife within four days of the husband returning from his duty in army. It is further pleaded that the child was born within 8 months of October, 2015 and there is clear pleading of non-access at the time when the child was conceived,”.
The husband stated that he was serving in the Indian Army and could visit his wife only once every three to six months for a short duration. He claimed that these facts clearly showed non-access at the relevant time, making his plea for a DNA test necessary to prove adultery.
The wife opposed the DNA test, arguing that it would violate the child’s right to privacy and unfairly place doubt on her legitimacy. She relied on Supreme Court rulings that emphasize the presumption of legitimacy under the Evidence Act and the need to protect the child’s identity and dignity.
However, the High Court noted that this was not a case where the husband was seeking a declaration of illegitimacy or attempting to avoid maintenance. The Court emphasized that the DNA test was sought only as evidence to support the ground of adultery in a divorce petition. The Court also took note of the prolonged litigation history between the parties.
It was highlighted that this was the third divorce petition filed by the husband. The first divorce petition was withdrawn after the wife assured that both parties would seek divorce by mutual consent.
The Court recorded:
“Then the application for mutual consent was filed in which the wife did not appear for second motion and now this third divorce petition has been filed which is also pending since the year 2021,”.
In view of these facts, the High Court held that the Family Court had rightly exercised its discretion in ordering the DNA test. The Court concluded that the case met the legal threshold laid down by the Supreme Court for permitting such tests in adultery-based divorce proceedings.
The High Court dismissed the wife’s petition and upheld the Family Court order. At the same time, it clarified the legal consequence of non-cooperation and observed that if the wife still refuses to provide DNA samples, the Family Court would be free to draw an adverse presumption against her under Section 114(h) of the Indian Evidence Act or the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
The judgment reinforces the principle that while privacy is important, it cannot be used as a shield to block the truth in matrimonial disputes where a spouse has raised specific and supported allegations and is only seeking a fair opportunity to prove them.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Applied In The Case
| Law & Section | Purpose of the Law | How Applied in This Case |
| Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 112 | Creates a strong presumption that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate | Court held this presumption is not absolute when the issue is adultery and there are clear pleadings of non-access |
| Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114 | Allows courts to presume facts based on human conduct and circumstances | Court held that if the wife refuses DNA testing, an adverse presumption can be drawn |
| Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114(h) | Allows presumption that withheld evidence would be unfavourable | Applied to warn that refusal to give DNA samples can go against the wife |
| Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 | Replaces the Evidence Act with similar principles | Court stated corresponding provisions can be invoked if DNA sample is refused |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i) | Provides adultery as a ground for divorce | DNA test sought only to prove adultery, not to declare the child illegitimate |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13-B | Provides for divorce by mutual consent | Court noted wife blocked earlier proceedings by not appearing in second motion |
| Supreme Court Precedent – Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015) | Allows DNA test in adultery cases where legitimacy is incidental | Heavily relied upon to justify DNA testing in present case |
| Supreme Court Precedent – Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2024) | Emphasises child’s privacy and legitimacy | Distinguished as facts here involved strong non-access pleadings |
| Supreme Court Precedent – Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025) | Introduced test of “eminent need” and “balancing of interests” | Court found eminent need existed due to clear timeline and conduct |
| Supreme Court Precedent – R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha (2025) | DNA test not to be used to destroy legitimacy casually | Court clarified present case does not seek illegitimacy declaration |
Case Details
- Case Title: Kamla Patel v. Govind Bahadur
- Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur
- Bench: Justice Vivek Jain
- Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 5428 of 2023
- Dates: Reserved on: 19.11.2025. Pronounced on: 20.01.2026
- Counsels: For Petitioner (Wife): Advocate Anuj Pathak & For Respondent (Husband): Advocate Sheetal Tiwari
Key Takeaways
- Courts cannot shut the door on scientific truth when a husband raises specific, time-based facts showing non-access and possible adultery.
- DNA testing is not an attack on a child’s legitimacy when the real issue is a wife’s conduct and the marriage has already broken down.
- Repeatedly blocking divorce proceedings and then invoking privacy cannot be used as a legal shield against accountability.
- Law recognises that men in uniform or transferable jobs are uniquely vulnerable to false assumptions of access and blind presumptions.
- Refusal to cooperate with DNA testing can legally go against the wife and invite adverse presumption under evidence law.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.