-
by Admin
16 February 2026 4:21 AM
“Legislature Never Envisaged a Situation Where a Female Would Deny That a Child Was Born From Her Womb”, In a deeply unusual and legally significant case, the Rajasthan High Court has held that when a mother herself denies maternity, the court cannot turn away from scientific truth. Balancing privacy rights with the duty to ascertain justice, the Court directed DNA testing to determine whether the plaintiff is the biological daughter of the defendant.
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, through Justice Bipin Gupta, delivered a reportable judgment allowing a writ petition and setting aside the trial court’s order which had rejected an application under Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC for DNA testing.
The Court observed that the present case was extraordinary, remarking, “This Court is astonished by the fact that a mother denying a child to be hers is a rarest of rare case.” The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Sanganer in Civil Suit No.77/2017.
Will, Ancestral Property and Denial of Daughterhood
The plaintiff sought declaration that a registered Will dated 10.04.2014 executed by her father, Late Shri Badri, was null and void and further sought declaration of ownership over half share in the ancestral property. She claimed that the land was ancestral and that she, being the daughter of Badri and Smt. Bila Devi (defendant No.2), had a rightful share.
However, in a shocking twist, defendant No.2 — the alleged mother — denied that the plaintiff was her daughter. While she did not dispute that Late Shri Badri was her husband, she denied the maternity of the plaintiff. The defendants further asserted that one Ramswaroop (defendant No.3) was their son.
In view of this denial, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC seeking scientific investigation through DNA testing of herself, defendant No.2, and defendant No.3 to conclusively determine maternity.
The trial court rejected the application on the ground that it would infringe privacy and that the defendants had refused to undergo the DNA test.
“Not a Case of Testing Paternity, But Maternity”
Justice Bipin Gupta made a crucial distinction. The Court noted that most precedents deal with denial of paternity by a male. However, the present case involved denial of maternity by a female.
The Court categorically held, “When a female counterpart is not disputing her marriage with a male, but she is denying the fact that a child is not her own, then it is not a case of testing the paternity, but rather a case to decide the maternity of the child.”
The Court further remarked that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 create a presumption of legitimacy of a child born during marriage, but the legislature “never envisaged a situation where a female would deny that a child was not born from her womb.”
This legislative silence, the Court implied, cannot leave a child remediless.
Privacy vs. Truth: The “Eminent Need” Test
The respondents argued that directing DNA testing would violate privacy. The Court acknowledged that no person can be forcibly compelled to undergo such a test. However, it relied heavily on Supreme Court precedents including Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy and Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik.
The High Court reiterated the principle that DNA testing cannot be ordered routinely but may be directed where it is “eminently needed” for a just decision.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s observations, the Court emphasized that when there is conflict between statutory presumption and scientific truth, “the latter must prevail over the former.”
In powerful words echoing the apex court, the judgment recorded, “‘Truth must triumph’ is the hallmark of justice.”
The Court concluded that in a case where the very identity of a child is denied by the mother, scientific testing becomes the most reliable and just method of determining truth.
Refusal Will Invite Adverse Presumption
Importantly, the Court clarified that while no person can be physically forced to undergo DNA testing, refusal would have legal consequences. If defendant No.2 declines to undergo the DNA test, the trial court may draw adverse inference under Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, corresponding to Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
The Court referred to Illustration (h), which permits presumption against a person who refuses to answer a question not legally compelled.
Thus, privacy is preserved, but truth is not sacrificed.
No Need to Test Defendant No.3
The Court held that there was no necessity to direct DNA testing of defendant No.3. It observed that it is for defendant No.3 to independently prove that he is the natural son of Late Shri Badri. The immediate and central issue was determination of the plaintiff’s maternity.
The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 24.02.2022 was quashed and set aside. The trial court was directed to order defendant No.2 to undergo DNA testing and match it with the DNA of the plaintiff to ascertain maternity. In case of refusal, the consequences as contemplated under Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 would follow.
Science as an Instrument of Justice
This judgment stands out not merely for ordering DNA testing, but for recognizing a rare and deeply sensitive human situation. By acknowledging that maternity disputes fall outside the traditional statutory presumption framework, the Court has filled an important legal gap.
In an era where scientific tools are precise and reliable, the Court has affirmed that justice cannot be denied in the name of procedural hesitation. When identity itself is in question and documentary evidence is unavailable, courts must not shy away from scientific truth.
As the judgment firmly conveys, when confronted with denial of one’s very existence, the law must ensure that “truth must triumph.”
Date of Pronouncement: 07.02.2026
