KALABURAGI<\/em>: In a recent judgment, the Karnataka High Court<\/strong>, Kalaburagi Bench, presided over by Justice Rajesh Rai K<\/strong>, dismissed a husband\u2019s petition seeking a DNA test of a minor child<\/strong> in an ongoing maintenance case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From the husband\u2019s side, this was an attempt to scientifically verify paternity<\/strong> before being compelled to bear long-term financial responsibility<\/strong>. However, the Court held that the request was not justified in the given facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The dispute arose after the marriage of the parties on 25 May 2022. A child was born thereafter. Due to marital differences, the wife approached the Family Court seeking maintenance<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During those proceedings, the husband filed an application requesting a DNA test, asserting that he had genuine doubts about being the biological father<\/strong> and wanted clarity through medical evidence<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband did not deny the marriage. He also admitted that they stayed together after marriage, but maintained that the cohabitation lasted only a few days<\/strong> and was not continuous<\/strong>. On this basis, he questioned the paternity and sought an opportunity to establish the truth through a DNA examination<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Family Court rejected his request. It observed that since the couple had lived together and cohabited, the child\u2019s paternity could not be doubted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also remarked that the application appeared to be filed with a preconceived notion to avoid maintenance liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband challenged this order before the High Court, arguing that a scientific test would conclusively settle the issue and prevent injustice. After hearing the matter, Justice Rajesh Rai K recorded the Court\u2019s findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDNA test in a matter relating to paternity of a child should not be directed by the Court as a matter of course or in a routine manner, whenever such a request is made.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Judge further stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Court has to consider diverse aspects including presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act i.e., Section 116 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; pros and cons of such order and the test of \u2018eminent need\u2019 whether it is not possible for the Court to reach the truth without use of such test.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Referring to the admitted marriage and cohabitation, the Court held<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn such circumstance, in my considered view, the paternity cannot be questioned.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Justice Rajesh Rai K concluded:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHence, I am of the opinion that the Family Court has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The petition was ultimately dismissed with the words, \u201cAccordingly, the petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The ruling highlights the difficulty faced by men who seek scientific verification of paternity in maintenance proceedings<\/strong>. The Court\u2019s decision reinforces that unless there is very strong material showing non-access, a DNA test will not be granted merely on suspicion<\/strong>, especially when marriage and cohabitation are admitted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law and Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/strong><\/td> Grants inherent powers to High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice<\/td> Husband invoked this provision to challenge the Family Court\u2019s rejection of his DNA test application<\/td><\/tr> Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Old Law)<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Earlier provision conferring inherent powers on High Court<\/td> Mentioned as the corresponding old provision under which similar reliefs were earlier sought<\/td><\/tr> Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Provides remedy for wife\/child to claim maintenance<\/td> Wife initiated maintenance proceedings under this provision before the Family Court<\/td><\/tr> Section 116, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023<\/strong><\/td> Presumption regarding legitimacy of child born during valid marriage<\/td> High Court referred to this presumption while holding that paternity cannot be questioned casually<\/td><\/tr> Section 112, Indian Evidence Act, 1872<\/a> (Old Law)<\/strong><\/td> Earlier statutory presumption of legitimacy during subsistence of marriage<\/td> Cited in the judgment while discussing the legal presumption protecting legitimacy of a child<\/td><\/tr> Sections 39 and 116, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023<\/strong><\/td> Provisions relating to evidence and legal presumptions<\/td> Husband relied on these sections while filing application seeking DNA testing before the Family Court<\/td><\/tr> Section 12, Family Courts Act, 1984<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Empowers Family Court regarding procedure and assistance in proceedings<\/td> Mentioned in the husband\u2019s application filed before the Family Court<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n