Welfare Of Child Alone Cannot Force Man To Undergo DNA Paternity Test: Karnataka High Court

KARNATAKA: The Karnataka High Court has set aside a Family Court order directing a man to undergo a DNA paternity test, holding that the welfare of a child and the need for maintenance alone cannot justify compulsory DNA testing without examining other available evidence.

Read Also:- Who Pays School Fees During A Child Custody Dispute? | Parents’ Legal Rights Explained

Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, in an order dated 3 November 2026, held that courts must consider the right to privacy, bodily autonomy and necessity of DNA testing before directing a person to provide biological samples.

The case arose after a woman approached the Bengaluru Family Court seeking maintenance for her minor son. She filed an application under Section 45 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, seeking a DNA test to establish the child's biological paternity.

Read Also:- DNA Test Can’t Be Ordered Just to Fish for Truth: Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Legitimacy & Right to Privacy

On 18 March 2026, the Family Court allowed her application and directed the man and the child to provide blood samples for DNA examination.

The man challenged the order before the Karnataka High Court, arguing that DNA testing cannot be ordered routinely without a strong prima facie case. He submitted that although he had admitted a physical relationship with the child's mother, it did not prove that he was the biological father.

He further argued that an earlier civil court had rejected a similar DNA testing application and that the woman's multiple legal proceedings and alleged inconsistent statements had not been properly considered.

The woman's counsel opposed the petition, claiming that the man had acknowledged their relationship, interacted with the child, provided financial assistance and given written assurances. She argued that the DNA test was necessary to establish paternity and secure child maintenance.

Read Also:- DNA Test Denied | Husband Questions Child's Paternity Over Wife's Alleged Infidelity, Madras HC Rejects His Plea & Imposes ₹50,000 Costs

The High Court examined whether the child's welfare, maintenance requirements and admission of a physical relationship were sufficient grounds to compel a man to undergo DNA testing.

The Court questioned whether these circumstances alone could justify compulsory DNA examination, particularly when an earlier request had been rejected, and the man had invoked his constitutional rights under Article 21.

Referring to Section 125(1)(b) CrPC and Section 144(1)(b) BNSS, the High Court clarified that both legitimate and illegitimate minor children have a statutory right to claim maintenance, subject to the prescribed conditions.

However, the Court distinguished between a child's right to maintenance and a man's legal liability to pay it.

It observed:

“The child's entitlement and the liability of the person from whom maintenance is sought are two distinct matters.”

The High Court explained that admitting a physical relationship does not automatically establish biological paternity. A man's legal responsibility must be determined through admissible evidence.

The Court also clarified that rejecting an earlier DNA testing application does not automatically bar a fresh request unless paternity has already been conclusively decided.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, the High Court reiterated that DNA tests should not be ordered as a routine procedure. Courts must first examine existing evidence and determine whether scientific testing is genuinely necessary.

The Court found that the Family Court had primarily relied on the child's welfare, maintenance requirements and admitted physical relationship, without examining whether paternity could be established through other evidence.

Protecting the man's right to privacy and bodily autonomy under Article 21, the High Court observed:

“The fact that he has accepted the physical relationship does not amount to consent for a DNA examination or surrender of his constitutional rights.”

The Court further clarified that Article 21 does not provide absolute protection against court-ordered DNA testing. However, such examination must satisfy the legal requirements of necessity and proportionality.

Emphasising that the welfare of a child cannot automatically override an individual's constitutional rights, the High Court stated:

“Merely observing that the welfare of the child is paramount does not answer whether the proposed examination is necessary and proportionate.”

The High Court held that the Family Court had failed to properly examine the available evidence or balance the child's interests against the man's right to privacy and bodily autonomy.

Accordingly, the Karnataka High Court set aside the DNA testing order dated 18 March 2026 and sent the application back to the Family Court for fresh consideration.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Man Cannot Be Forced Into DNA Test: A woman's paternity claim alone cannot justify compulsory DNA testing.
• Sexual Relationship Does Not Prove Fatherhood: Admitting intimacy with a woman does not automatically make a man the biological father.
• Child Welfare Cannot Override Men's Rights: A child's maintenance needs alone cannot justify violating a man's privacy and bodily autonomy.
• Maintenance Liability Needs Proof: A man cannot be held responsible for a child's maintenance merely because paternity is alleged.
• High Court Protects Man's Rights: Karnataka HC set aside the DNA test order, reinforcing that courts must establish necessity before compelling a man to undergo testing.