Introduction
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a party cannot seek a DNA test merely to disprove the paternity of a daughter in a partition suit. The Court observed that a person disputing paternity must establish such a claim through legally admissible evidence and cannot compel a DNA examination as a matter of right.
Legal Issue
The issue before the Court was whether a defendant in a partition suit could seek a DNA test to challenge the respondent’s claim that she was his biological daughter and thereby deny her share in the family property.
The petitioner argued that the respondent was not his daughter but the daughter of his elder brother. He contended that a DNA test was necessary to determine the truth and further argued that an adverse inference should be drawn because the respondent refused to undergo the test.
Background
The respondent had filed a partition suit claiming rights over the suit schedule properties as the daughter of the petitioner. During the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10-A read with Section 151 CPC seeking a direction for DNA testing.
The trial court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner approached the High Court through a revision petition.
Court’s Decision
Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao upheld the trial court’s order and ruled that the petitioner could not insist on a DNA test to disprove the respondent’s paternity claim.
The Court observed that even if the petitioner disputed the respondent’s status as his daughter, he must prove the same through other legally permissible evidence. It emphasized that DNA testing cannot be routinely ordered in civil disputes relating to partition and family status.
The High Court relied upon the Aparna Ajinkya Forodia v. Ajinkya Arun Forodia and Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal Supreme Court judgments in and .
Referring to these precedents, the Court reiterated that:
- DNA testing requests must be examined from the perspective of the child.
- Courts should exercise caution before ordering such tests.
- A strong presumption of legitimacy exists for children born during a valid marriage under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
The Court further noted that the petitioner was attempting to disprove paternity in a partition suit and that such disputes should ordinarily be resolved through documentary and oral evidence rather than intrusive scientific tests.
Finding no merit in the revision petition, the Court dismissed the plea and imposed costs of ₹3,000 on the petitioner.
Conclusion
The Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that DNA tests cannot be ordered casually in family and partition disputes merely because one party disputes paternity. The ruling highlights the importance of protecting the dignity and legitimacy of children while ensuring that parties establish their claims through proper legal evidence instead of seeking routine scientific examinations.
Case Name
Case Title: Saradaga Narasayya Reddy v. Dingu Kanaka Mahalakshmi
