Introduction
In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court ruled that a DNA test cannot serve as a shortcut to prove infidelity. The court emphasised that the rights of the child must guide such requests. It refused a husband’s plea to test a child to prove that his wife was adulterous.
The case is titled K v. M (2025). The petitioners included the husband, and the respondents were the wife and their child. Justice Shamim Ahmed delivered the judgment.
Facts of the Case
The couple married in 2007. They had a child in 2009. Over time, they developed disputes and began living separately. In 2012, the wife filed for divorce. The parties jointly executed a memo and obtained a divorce in the same year.
After the divorce, the wife filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC. The husband countered by seeking a DNA test of the child, claiming the child was not his. The trial court (a Judicial Magistrate) dismissed his DNA test request. The husband filed a revision petition before the High Court.
What the Court Says
The High Court held that DNA testing cannot serve as a shortcut to establish infidelity that might have happened long ago or even after the child’s birth. The court insisted that one must view the request through the child’s rights, not the parents’ interests.
The court said the child must not become a pawn in a dispute to prove adultery by the mother. The husband may present other evidence of adulterous conduct, but he cannot sacrifice the child’s right to identity for that purpose. The court also observed that ordering the DNA test would infringe the fundamental rights of the wife and the child.
The court found that the husband had not made out a prima facie case warranting DNA testing. He had not produced any credible evidence to support his claim that he was not the biological father. The court also noted that he waited 12 years after the divorce and three years after the maintenance petition before seeking the test. He provided no acceptable reason for the delay.
The court considered these delays suspicious and held that the request likely aimed to humiliate the wife and prolong the maintenance case. It also relied on the legal presumption of legitimacy under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam). Taking into account the unexplained delay, lack of material, and legal presumption in favour of legitimacy, the court found no sufficient cause to grant DNA examination under Section 39 of the Evidence Act.
The High Court dismissed the revision petition as untenable and without merit.
Implications
This ruling reinforces that courts should not lightly permit DNA tests to prove adultery, especially when long delays or weak evidence exist. It places the welfare and dignity of children above litigants’ claims. This affirms that one cannot use a child’s identity as a weapon in matrimonial disputes. It also underlines that requests for DNA testing must satisfy rigorous thresholds, including establishing a strong prima facie case.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
In K v. M, the Madras High Court refused to allow DNA testing demanded by a husband to prove his wife’s alleged adultery. The court made clear that children cannot be used as a pawn. It stressed that any DNA test request must protect the rights of the child and pass strict legal scrutiny. The revision petition failed and was dismissed.
