Introduction
The Karnataka High Court delivered a landmark ruling clarifying the limits of DNA tests in paternity disputes under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment, titled S.112 Evidence Act, Compelling DNA Test To Determine Child’s Paternity Without Imminent Need Violates Sanctity Of Marriage. They addressed a critical legal aspect, whether courts can compel DNA testing of a child born within a lawful marriage without concrete proof of non‑access. The court examined the clash between scientific evidence and the law’s presumption of legitimacy. It also considered constitutional rights, including the child’s and parents’ right to privacy and dignity under Article 21. The High Court emphasized that while DNA tests can resolve paternity doubts, courts must respect legal presumptions, family sanctity, and constitutional safeguards before ordering such tests.
Facts of the Case
The trial court allowed a DNA test after the plaintiffs completed their evidence. Defendant No. 1 (the alleged father) and Defendant No. 3 (the child) were directed to undergo testing. Defendant No. 3 objected, noting that the child was born within a lawful marriage. He argued that the plaintiffs had not alleged non‑access during conception. He further contended that the order violated Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, impacting privacy, freedom, and dignity.
The plaintiffs claimed that the husband had a vasectomy eight years before the child’s birth. However, they failed to provide admissible proof of non‑access. The High Court observed that the trial court overlooked Section 112, which presumes a child born in a valid marriage is legitimate unless non‑access is proven. The court held that ordering DNA tests without legal justification disrupts the child’s legitimacy and the family’s reputation. It stressed that DNA testing should not be routine in matrimonial disputes.
What the Court Says
The High Court emphasized the legal maxim under Section 112: pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant, the father is the one whom the marriage indicates. This presumption promotes social stability, moral order, and child welfare.
The court ruled that DNA tests can only be ordered if plaintiffs provide admissible proof of non‑access during conception. Judges must balance scientific inquiry with constitutional rights. Ordering DNA tests without proof violates the privacy and dignity of both the child and parents. The High Court cautioned trial courts against granting DNA testing as a default measure. Judges must ensure plaintiffs meet the Section 112 threshold before directing any scientific test.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Implication
The ruling reinforces the central role of Section 112 in paternity disputes. It upholds the presumption of legitimacy for children born within lawful marriages. Courts cannot bypass this presumption without strong, pleaded evidence of non‑access.
The decision aligns with Supreme Court precedents restricting DNA testing unless legally justified. Family courts now have clear guidance, plaintiffs must plead non‑access and provide admissible evidence. Courts must reject DNA tests in its absence. The judgment safeguards marital sanctity, children’s dignity, and family privacy. It also prevents unnecessary intrusion and reputational harm, maintaining ethical and legal standards in sensitive family disputes.
