Courts must be cautious to do DNA test
Even if a mother agrees to get done the DNA profiling test of her child to ascertain its paternity, the courts must still act as the ‘custodian’ of the rights of the child and consider the pros and cons of the said test before calling upon the minor to undergo the test, says the Bombay High Court in SKP v KSP [2025: BHC-NAG:6350].
Child is incapable of taking a decision as to blood test
As held by the Supreme Court, no one can be compelled to undergo blood test. In case of a minor child, he/she is not capable of taking decision of agreeing to the test or refusal thereof. More particularly, when the parents of such child are fighting against each other and most of the times, the child is a tool, in such fight, the Court must become the custodian of rights of minor child. There would be more responsibility on the Court than to just decide the lis/disputed questions between parties. The Court is undoubtedly required to consider pros and cons before calling upon minor child to undergo blood/DNA test to determine its paternity.
Paternity not to be proved unless father disputes
Unless the husband disputes that he is not the father of the child and makes out a specific case of having no access to wife and rebuts presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, the question of determining the paternity of the child does not arise.
Question of accuracy of DNA Test
Though, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v Lata Nandlal Badwaik & Another [2014 2 SCC 576] cited by the husband indicates importance and even accuracy of scientific DNA Profiling Test.
Still question arises as to whether the presumption of conclusive proof of legitimacy can be dislodged on the ground of inaccuracy, when father does not satisfy the condition of he having no access to mother of the child during relevant time.
Secondly, if there is allegation against the wife that she lives adulterous life, the said fact can be proved by any other evidence than calling upon the child to undergo the paternity test.
In the above case, the SC says DNA test in a matter relating to paternity of a child should not be directed by the court as a matter of course or in a routine manner, whenever such a request is made. The court has to consider diverse aspects including presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act; pros and cons of such order and the test of “eminent need” whether it is not possible for the court to reach the truth without use of such test.
References
- SKP v KSP [2025: BHC-NAG:6350]
- Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v Lata Nandlal Badwaik & Another [2014 2 SCC 576]
