Justice Shamim Ahmed<\/strong> observed that such a plea was both belated and intended to humiliate the former wife<\/strong>, especially as the man offered no satisfactory reason for the delay. The Court made it clear that DNA testing cannot be used as a shortcut method to establish infidelity<\/strong>, saying \u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe DNA Testing cannot be used as a short cut method to establish infidelity… The child cannot be used as a pawn to show that the mother of the child was living in adultery.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The couple married in March 2007<\/strong>, and their daughter was born in December 2009<\/strong>. Following marital disputes, they obtained a mutual divorce in March 2012<\/strong>. After almost a decade, the wife filed a maintenance case in 2021<\/strong> before the Palani Judicial Magistrate. During those proceedings, the husband applied for a DNA test<\/strong>, claiming that the child was not biologically his.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the Trial Court dismissed<\/strong> the plea in June 2025, ruling that there was no need to order a DNA test<\/strong>. Challenging this, the man filed a Criminal Revision Petition (Crl.R.C(MD) No.842 of 2025)<\/strong> under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rejecting the revision, Justice Ahmed said the husband failed to explain the 12-year delay, <\/strong>remarking \u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNo satisfactory explanation has been given by the revision petitioner for such an inordinate delay.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also noted that the petitioner appeared to have moved the plea \u201conly with a view to humiliate his wife and to protract the maintenance case.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Referring to Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023<\/strong>, the Court said that a child born during a valid marriage is conclusively presumed legitimate<\/strong>, unless it is proven that the husband and wife had no access to each other during the relevant time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe revision petitioner has failed to establish non-access. No material has been placed before this Court to disprove access between them in the relevant period.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court relied on several Supreme Court rulings<\/strong> to explain that DNA tests must not be ordered routinely:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025)<\/strong>, the apex court held that DNA tests should not be used unless there is a strong prima facie case<\/strong>, and that such orders may have \u201cfar-reaching effects on the dignity and privacy of individuals.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Similarly, in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)<\/strong>, the Supreme Court ruled that forcing a person to undergo tests like DNA, narco-analysis, or brain mapping violates Article 20(3)<\/strong> (right against self-incrimination) and Article 21<\/strong> (right to privacy) of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe compulsory administration of the impugned techniques violates the \u2018right against self-incrimination\u2019… It would also amount to \u2018cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment\u2019.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Further, in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023)<\/strong>, the top court clarified that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDNA testing cannot be used as a short cut to establish infidelity that might have occurred over a decade ago… The child cannot be used as a pawn to show that the mother was living in adultery.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Justice Ahmed cited this precedent to underline that ordering a DNA test years after divorce would violate both the wife\u2019s and the child\u2019s rights<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Madras High Court concluded that the husband had not made out any legal justification<\/strong> for a DNA test and that the petition was frivolous and motivated<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis Court finds that the Revision Petitioner, only with a view to humiliate his wife and to defame her name and to protract the maintenance case, has come forward with this frivolous Criminal Revision Case.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Reiterating that privacy and identity rights of the child<\/strong> must be protected, the Court emphasized:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe question whether a DNA Test should be permitted on the child is to be analysed through the prism of the child and not through the prism of the parents… The child cannot be used as a pawn to show that the mother of the child was living in adultery.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Holding that there was no prima facie case<\/strong>, and that the delay, lack of evidence, and legal presumptions<\/strong> all went against the husband, the Court dismissed the revision petition<\/strong> on September 25, 2025<\/strong>, and upheld the trial court\u2019s order refusing the DNA test<\/p>\n\n\n Case Details<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Key Takeaways From the Judgment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Final Disposition<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Presumption of Legitimacy under Law<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Supreme Court Precedents on DNA Testing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Court\u2019s Final Observation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
![\"Madras](\"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Madras-High-Court-1024x576.webp\" "\\"\\"")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\nExplanatory Table of Laws, Sections & Precedents Mentioned<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Case \/ Section<\/th> Full Citation \/ Description<\/th> Explanation \/ Relevance in Judgment<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Sections 438 & 442<\/em><\/td> The revision petition was filed under these provisions, replacing the old CrPC sections. These deal with the High Court\u2019s powers to revise or call for records and set aside lower court orders.<\/td><\/tr> Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)<\/strong><\/td> Section 116<\/em><\/td> Replaces Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It presumes that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate<\/strong>, unless the husband proves \u201cnon-access.\u201d The husband here failed to prove non-access.<\/td><\/tr> Constitution of India<\/strong><\/td> Article 20(3) \u2013 Right against self-incrimination Article 21 \u2013 Right to privacy and life<\/td> The court said forcing DNA or similar tests violates these rights, referring to Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010).<\/td><\/tr> Supreme Court \u2013 Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, (2025 INSC 115)<\/strong><\/td> Crl.A.No.413 of 2024<\/td> The SC held DNA tests can\u2019t be ordered as routine; only if a strong prima facie case<\/strong> is made out, and courts must avoid infringing privacy or dignity. Justice Ahmed directly relied on this precedent.<\/td><\/tr> Supreme Court \u2013 Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263<\/strong><\/td> Criminal Appeal No.1267 of 2004<\/td> Landmark ruling holding that compulsory administration of DNA, narco, or brain mapping tests violates Articles 20(3) and 21<\/strong>. Quoted at length by the HC.<\/td><\/tr> Supreme Court \u2013 Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023)<\/strong><\/td> SLP(C) No. 9855 of 2022<\/td> The Court held DNA testing can\u2019t be used as a shortcut to prove adultery years later; a child\u2019s legitimacy must not be questioned casually. Cited to reinforce the HC\u2019s stand.<\/td><\/tr> Kerala High Court \u2013 Abdurahiman v. State of Kerala (2013)<\/strong><\/td> Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 2329 of 2012<\/td> Discussed the limited necessity of DNA testing and stated that paternity tests are not always relevant in proving rape or sexual assault; quoted to show restraint in ordering DNA tests.<\/td><\/tr> Section 39 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023<\/strong><\/td> Related to admissibility of scientific evidence<\/td> The HC noted that the petitioner\u2019s request under this section (to allow scientific tests) lacked legal justification as no prima facie case was made.<\/td><\/tr> Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) 3 SCC 418<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court<\/td> Established that courts in India cannot order blood or DNA tests as a matter of course<\/strong>; a strong prima facie case and non-access proof are mandatory before ordering such tests. Quoted within Ivan Rathinam case passage.<\/td><\/tr> Latin Maxim<\/strong><\/td> Jura publica anteferenda privatis juribus<\/em><\/td> Meaning: \u201cPublic rights are to be preferred to private rights.\u201d Used by Justice Ahmed to emphasize that while privacy is important, frivolous misuse of court process must not override public interest.<\/td><\/tr> Maintenance Proceedings<\/strong><\/td> Section 125 of the old CrPC (now BNSS equivalent)<\/em><\/td> The wife filed maintenance case (M.C. No. 4\/2021). The husband\u2019s DNA plea arose during this proceeding, allegedly to avoid paying maintenance.<\/td><\/tr> Right to Identity (Child\u2019s Rights)<\/strong><\/td> Constitutional + Jurisprudential principle<\/td> The HC stressed that forcing a child into paternity disputes violates the child\u2019s right to identity and dignity<\/strong>, reinforcing the modern approach of protecting children from parental conflicts.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n \n
\n
\n
\n