DNA Test Cannot Be a Tool to Harass or Humiliate: Madras High Court Dismisses Criminal Revision Seeking Paternity Test in Maintenance Case

“Presumption of Legitimacy Cannot Be Shaken Without Proving Non-Access” – Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) delivered a reasoned and significant ruling under criminal revisional jurisdiction, holding that scientific testing such as DNA examination cannot be ordered casually in matrimonial disputes, particularly when it is sought to challenge the paternity of a child in maintenance proceedings, long after divorce and without any prima facie basis.

Justice Shamim Ahmed, rejecting a Criminal Revision Petition challenging the trial court’s refusal to order a DNA test of a minor child, held that:

“DNA Testing cannot be used as a short cut method to establish infidelity that might have occurred over a decade ago… The child cannot be used as a pawn to show that the mother of the child was living in adultery.”

Reinforcing the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and emphasizing the child’s right to privacy, identity, and dignity, the Court concluded that the petitioner had abused the legal process to delay maintenance proceedings and to defame his former wife, thus warranting no interference.

“Right to Privacy of the Child Prevails Over Father's Vague Allegations” – No DNA Test Without Strong Prima Facie Evidence

The petitioner had sought direction for a DNA test under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, during pending maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, asserting that the child, born in 2009, was not biologically his. Notably, the application was made in 2025, twelve years after divorce and three years after the maintenance petition was filed.

Rejecting the plea, the Court categorically observed: “The long and unexplained delay of nearly 12 years, absence of any documentary or supporting material, the legal presumption of legitimacy under Section 116… and the privacy concerns involved all weigh heavily against the claim of the Revision Petitioner.” [Para 38]

The Court held that DNA tests, while being scientific tools, cannot be ordered to satisfy suspicions, nor to humiliate a woman, especially when no evidence of non-access between the couple was produced.

“No material has been placed before this Court to disprove access between them in the relevant period before the birth of the child.” [Para 28

“Presumption of Legitimacy Under Section 116 is Strong and Binding – Not Rebutted Merely by Suspicion”

Referring to Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which presumes legitimacy of a child born during valid marriage or within 280 days of dissolution unless non-access is shown, the Court noted:

“There exists a strong presumption that the husband is the father of the child borne by his wife during the subsistence of their marriage… The object of this principle is to prevent any unwarranted enquiry into the paternity of a child.” [Para 27]

The Court added that the petitioner had not even attempted to demonstrate non-access during the relevant time period, which is mandatory to rebut the presumption.

“DNA Testing Not to Be Used as a Shortcut to Prove Adultery or Escape Maintenance Liability”

The Court relied on the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, SLP(C) No. 9855 of 2022, where it was held:

“DNA testing cannot be used as a shortcut to establish infidelity... No adverse inference can be drawn against the mother for refusing the test.”

Similarly, referring to Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, (2025 INSC 115), the Court emphasized that DNA tests cannot be allowed routinely, and must only be permitted where strong prima facie evidence exists.

Quoting the Apex Court, the Madras High Court reiterated: “There must be a strong prima facie case… The Court must carefully examine whether it will have the effect of branding a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman.” [Para 29]

“Invasion of Privacy Cannot Be Justified by Mere Allegations” – Fundamental Rights Must Be Respected

Recognising the constitutional implications of compelled DNA testing, the Court stressed that such tests are intrusions into the privacy and dignity of the child and mother, and cannot be undertaken lightly.

Relying on Selvi v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2004, the Court held: “The compulsory administration of the impugned techniques violates the right against self-incrimination and substantive due process under Article 21… Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty.” [Para 30]

The Court further cautioned: “Scientific evidence, though sophisticated, must be weighed against constitutional values, particularly where a child’s psychological well-being and social identity are at stake.”

“Courts Cannot Permit Scientific Tools to Be Misused to Harass Women or Children” – Petition Filed with Malafide Intent

The Court condemned the malicious motive behind the application, noting the timing of the request and the conduct of the petitioner:

“Revision Petitioner has come forward with this frivolous Criminal Revision Case only with a view to humiliate his wife and to defame her name and to protract the maintenance case.” [Para 38]

Despite being granted divorce by mutual consent in 2012, the petitioner took no steps to question paternity for over a decade. The Court rejected the argument that failure to file a counter by the wife on the DNA test application weakened her case, holding that mere silence does not validate an abuse of process.

Paternity Presumed, Privacy Upheld, Petition Dismissed

In conclusion, the Madras High Court held that: “The DNA Test, as prayed for by the Revision Petitioner, will infringe the fundamental rights of the Respondents… The delay in filing, failure to prove non-access and the legal presumption under Section 116… all weigh heavily against the Revision Petitioner.” [Para 37]

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case, upholding the Trial Court's reasoned order dated 12.06.2025, which had refused to allow DNA testing in the maintenance proceedings. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.

Date of Decision: 25 September 2025