By: Akanksha
On November 3, 2026, a Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Smt. Justice Latitha Kanneganti at the High Court of Karnataka in Bengaluru set aside an order dated March 18, 2026, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, on I.A. No. 5 in Crl. Misc. No. 63/2025. That order had directed a minor child and an alleged father to provide blood samples for DNA testing to determine paternity in a maintenance case.
In delivering the CAV Order for Writ Petition No. 11719 of 2026 (GM-FC) (Neutral Citation: 2026: KHC: 61121), reserved on September 28, 2026, the High Court held that the best interests of the child, the need for maintenance, and the father’s admission to a physical relationship are not sufficient to establish the “imminent need” to conduct a DNA test. Such a test cannot be ordered without first considering the other available evidence and balancing the petitioner’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court cancelled the direction passed under Section 45 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 202, and remanded the matter. The Family Court was directed to consider the effect of prior civil proceedings, the applicability of the Section 112 presumption of legitimacy, and other available evidence to determine if a DNA test is necessary and proportionate.
The respondent mother filed Crl. Misc. No. 63/2025 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, seeking maintenance for her minor child. In that proceeding, she also filed I.A. No. 5 under Section 45 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The application sought a direction to conduct a DNA test to determine the biological relationship between the minor child and the petitioner.
By an order dated March 18, 226, the Family Court allowed the application and directed the minor child and the father to provide their blood samples. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Advocate Sri Ravinson M. appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Sri. Mithun U. and Advocate Smt. Shubhasri M.V. (for Advocate Smt. Usha Reddy K.P.) represented the respondent.
Counsel for the father argued that a direction for a DNA test cannot be passed as a matter of routine. It can only be ordered when there is a strong prima facie case, which was absent in the instant matter. He contended that the Family Court erred in treating his alleged admission in a reply notice as conclusive evidence. The mere fact that the parties knew each other or interacted does not constitute proof of paternity.
Furthermore, he pointed out that an identical application had previously been rejected by a competent civil court, and that order had attained finality. Hence, seeking the same relief again constituted an abuse of the process of law. He also argued that the mother had initiated multiple proceedings and acted inconsistently, demonstrating a mala fide intent, and that the impugned order permitted an impermissible roving and fishing enquiry.
To support his stance, counsel relied on various Supreme Court judgments and an order by an Co-ordinate Bench of the Karnataka High Court: Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta & Others [(2012) 1 SSC 200], Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia [(2024) 7 SCC 773], and others. These precedents establish that courts should not direct blood tests if other evidence is available, as there are two blockades to ordering a DNA test:
Insufficient evidence
A positive finding regarding the balance of interest
Counsel for the respondent argued that the Family Court had properly considered all circumstances. The petitioner had admitted to a sexual relationship in his reply dated March 25, 2024. He also acknowledged and interacted with the child, made financial contributions, and provided handwritten assurances. Furthermore, the mother had specifically pleaded that there was complete abandonment and no access by her first husband prior to conception.
Regarding the earlier suit (O.S. No. 25550/2024), counsel explained that it was a permanent injunction case relating to immovable property where paternity was not an issue. Therefore, the April 23, 2025, order dismissing the application for a Commissioner to conduct a DNA test did not determine paternity and could not constitute res judicata.
Relying on Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram [2001 (5) SCC 311], Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal & Anr. [(1993) 3 SCC 418], Nandla Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik [(2014) 2 SCC 576], Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy [(2015) 1 SCC 365], and others, counsel argued that scientific proof should prevail. She also contended that a child’s right to know her biological parentage is a part of her dignity and identity under Article 21 of the Constitution and Articles 7 and 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Also Read: DNA Test Tragedy: New York Woman Sues Labs After Paternity Error Leads to Abortion
The High Court noted that both legitimate and illegitimate minor children are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 (1)(b) of the CrPC and Section 144(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023. However, this statutory right does not mean a child is automatically entitled to maintenance or that the person from whom it is claimed is automatically liable; liability must be determined based on factual and evidentiary circumstances.
The Court clarified that the child's entitlement to maintenance and the liability of the person from whom maintenance is sought are two distinct matters. While the former is recognized by statute, the latter must be established through facts and evidence. The child's entitlement to maintenance does not, by itself, establish that the petitioner is legally responsible for providing it.
Although the petitioner admitted to having a physical relationship with the mother, he denied being the biological father. The Court held that while this admission is relevant, it “cannot be treated as conclusive proof of paternity,” as quoted by Verdictum. A relationship between two individuals does not automatically mean that a child was fathered by that man.
As noted in the paragraph 7 of the order, Hon’ble Lalitha Kannesganti stated:
“…Nevertheless, the welfare of the child, important as it is, cannot be treated as a substitute for the judicial inquiry required before directing DNA examination. The child's need for maintenance establishes the importance of deciding the claim expeditiously. It does not necessarily establish that the claim is decided only through scientific testing. The trial court was required to consider whether the mother could establish the alleged parental relationship through the evidence otherwise available. The circumstances concerning the period of the admitted relation, the birth of the child, any acknowledgment of parentage and other relevant evidence would have a bearing upon the inquiry. Only if such evidence was insufficient to resolve a dispute, would the necessity of a DNA examination arise.”
The High Court clarified that an order rejecting a DNA test does not amount to a final determination of paternity. Res judicata only applied if paternity had been conclusively determined. On this basis, the High Court distinguished the present case from Ivan Rathinam, where there has been a conclusive prior determination regarding legitimacy.
If a child is born during a valid marriage, it cannot be argued that the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is displaced merely because of an alleged external relationship. The core issue remains whether there was non-access between the married couple during the period when the child could have been conceived. The existence of an additional relationship does not, by itself, establish non-access. The High Court clarified that the applicability of this presumption in the present case depends on the mother's marital status during the relevant period and other foundational requirements under Section 112. The Family Court must examine whether these conditions are satisfied.
Referring to Chaturbhuj Pradhan v. Amar Pradhan & Anr. [2026 INSC 600], the High Court also considered the Supreme Court's application of the principles laid down in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph [2025 INSC 115]. In Chaturbhuj Pradhan, the Supreme Court upheld a direction for DNA testing after finding that the available evidence could not conclusively resolve the paternity dispute and that the balance of interests favored the test. The High Court noted that DNA testing is neither prohibited in every disputed paternity case nor permissible merely because paternity is denied. Its necessity must be established based on the circumstances of each case.
The Court explained that there are two requirements before ordering a DNA test: first, the available evidence must be insufficient to resolve the dispute; and second, the balance of interests must positively justify the test, considering the privacy, dignity and potential harm to the persons concerned. Both requirements must be assessed before directing scientific examination.Furthermore, because DNA tests reveal sensitive genetic information, they infringe upon the petitioner’s rights to privacy and bodily autonomy under Article 21. The petitioner’s admission to a physical relationship does not constitute consent to a DNA test. However, the Court also noted that the petitioner cannot claim absolute immunity under Article 21. Citing Sharda v. Dharampal [(2003) 4 SCC 493] and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1], the High Court emphasized that the trial court must balance the rights of both parties and ensure proportionality.
The High Court set aside the Family Court’s order dated March 18, 2026, and the direction under Section 45 of the BSA. The matter was remanded with the following directions for the Family Court:
Consider the Application Contextually: The court must evaluate the application by having regard to the effect of prior civil proceedings, whether a presumption of legitimacy exists under Section 112 (where applicable), the other evidence available, and whether there is a genuine necessity to conduct a DNA test.
Record Necessary Reasons: If there is necessity to conduct a test, the court must record reasons showing that there is insufficient evidence to resolve the dispute otherwise, and that the resulting infringement upon privacy is proportionate.
Decide Promptly: The application must be decided expeditiously, without regard to the observations made by the High Court, and all pending I.A.s must be closed.
(Rh/APC/MSM)