Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Kerala High Court Denies DNA Test in Partition Suit, Emphasizes Need for Strong Prima Facie Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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

Similar News