Kerala High Court Denies DNA Test in Partition Suit, Emphasizes Need for Strong Prima Facie Case
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has set aside an order by the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Pattambi, which had allowed a sibling DNA test in a partition suit. The High Court emphasized the necessity for a strong prima facie case before permitting such an intrusive test, finding the plaintiff’s evidence primarily based on hearsay and insufficient to warrant the DNA analysis.
Credibility of Plaintiff’s Evidence: The court scrutinized the evidence presented by the plaintiff, Sreedevi Amma, who claimed to be the daughter of the deceased Kuttikrishnan Nair and sought to establish her paternity through a sibling DNA test. The court found that the plaintiff’s knowledge about her alleged parents’ marriage was based on hearsay from her mother, Madhavi Amma, and lacked direct evidence. The other witnesses also provided hearsay evidence, which the court deemed insufficient to establish a strong prima facie case.
Legal Reasoning and Precedents: Justice C. Jayachandran, presiding over the bench, referred to several key Supreme Court judgments to outline the legal framework governing the permissibility of DNA tests in civil disputes. The court noted:
Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) 3 SCC 418: Courts in India cannot order blood tests as a matter of course and must ensure there is a strong prima facie case before doing so.
Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003) 4 SCC 493: A court can order a medical test if the applicant has a strong prima facie case and sufficient material before the court.
Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women (2010) 8 SCC 633: DNA tests should only be ordered when there is an “eminent need” and not as a routine procedure.
Justice Jayachandran remarked, “The existence of a strong prima facie case is a sine qua non to seek the conduct of a DNA test. The plaintiff’s evidence, being primarily hearsay, does not meet this threshold.”
The High Court’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach in ordering DNA tests, balancing the need to uncover the truth with the potential intrusion on personal privacy and the disruptive consequences of such tests. By setting aside the trial court’s order, the High Court emphasized that substantial and concrete evidence is required to justify a DNA test, which should not be used as a means to fish for evidence. The case has been remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings without the influence of the High Court’s observations on the merits of the suit.
Date of Decision:20th May 2024
GANGADHARAN VS SREEDEVI AMMA AND SARADHA
