Second 482 Petition Maintainable On Changed Circumstances: Allahabad HC Quashes Proceedings Against Aptech VP In Jal Nigam Recruitment Case Police Have No Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Civil Disputes Between Parties, Must Adhere To Statutory Limits: Andhra Pradesh High Court Consent Decree Based On Compromise Signed By Constituted Attorney And Counsel Is Binding Even After 30 Years: Bombay High Court Changing Service Conditions Mid-Bond For Senior Residents Doctors Is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Quashes Retroactive Application Of New SOP Succession Certificate Under Indian Succession Act Cannot Determine Entitlement To Family Pension And Retiral Benefits: Allahabad High Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected For Failure To Value Reliefs Separately And Pay Ad-Valorem Court Fees: Delhi High Court NDPS Act | Non-Compliance With Mandatory Provisions Of Sections 42, 50 And 57 Vitiates Search And Seizure, Warrants Acquittal: Gujarat High Court FIR Cannot Be Quashed Merely On Complainant’s Consent; Court Must Independently Scrutinize If Ingredients Of Offence Are Made Out: Calcutta High Court Section 25 Hindu Marriage Act | Permanent Alimony Must Be Based On Husband’s Financial Capacity And Wife’s Reasonable Comfort: Jharkhand High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Direct Registration Of FIR Or Constitute SIT When Statutory Remedies Under CrPC Are Available: Delhi High Court Child Cannot Be Used As A Pawn To Prove Adultery Between Parents: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea To Examine Minor As Witness Section 156(3) CrPC | Magistrate Cannot Give Criminal Colour To Administrative Disputes By Directing FIR Registration Without Compliance With Priyanka Srivastava: High Court Contempt Of Court Act | Burden To Prove 'Willful Disobedience' Lies Upon Complainant; Merely Alleging Non-Compliance Is Insufficient: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Dismiss Matrimonial Petition Merely For Lack Of 'Elaborate' Evidence In Ex-Parte Proceedings: Kerala High Court Election Petition Under Section 100 RP Act Must Be Supported By Mandatory Affidavit In Form 94A For Corrupt Practice Allegations: Madras High Court Water Act | Supreme Court Directive Overrides Previous Quashing Orders; Magistrate Can Proceed Against Municipal Officials For Unchecked Sewage Discharge: Karnataka High Court A&C Act | Arbitrator’s Decision On Jurisdiction Treated As A Preliminary Issue Amounts To An 'Interim Award' Amenable To Challenge Under Section 34: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act | No Requirement To Hear Accused At Pre-Cognizance Stage Under Section 223 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 94 BNSS | Financial Institutions Entitled To Retain Custody Of Pledged Gold Provided Undertaking Is Filed Before Trial Court: Telangana High Court Family Courts Act | Section 14 Overrides Section 92 Indian Evidence Act To Admit Oral Evidence For Proving Real Source Of Funds: Kerala High Court

SETS ASIDE DNA TEST ORDER IN PATERNITY DISPUTE CASE - STRONG PRIMA FACIE CASE REQUIRED – P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Date: 29.05.2023

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a revision petition, set aside an order for a DNA test in a paternity dispute case. The court emphasized the need for a strong prima facie case and protected the right to privacy of the defendant, stating that a party cannot be compelled to prove their case in the manner suggested by the contesting party.

The case involved Vijay Kumar Garg, also known as Dee Cee Gharianwala, as the defendant No.1-petitioner, and Kajal alias Nicky and another as the respondents. The plaintiff, Kajal alias Nicky, had filed a suit seeking a declaration that she is the daughter of the defendant No.1-petitioner and defendant No.2-respondent No.2. The defendant No.1-petitioner had denied the allegations. Both parties had presented their evidence in court.

The court, while examining the issue, highlighted that a DNA test should not be ordered as a matter of routine. The burden of proof lies on the litigating party, and a party cannot be compelled to prove their case in the manner suggested by the contesting party. The court further emphasized that a DNA test cannot be ordered for a roving enquiry.

Referring to previous judgments, including Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta (2005) 4 SCC 449 and Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women (2010) 8 SCC 633, the court reiterated that a strong prima facie case and the balancing of interests of the parties are crucial factors in ordering a DNA test. The court also considered the right to privacy and protection from stigmatization, recognizing the potential adverse impact on an individual's personal and social life if subjected to a DNA test.

The court further examined the timing of the application for the DNA test and the proportionality of the legitimate aims pursued. It emphasized the importance of protecting the right to privacy and personal autonomy of the plaintiff, particularly in a declaratory suit where the plaintiff had already presented evidence and was not interested in producing additional evidence, such as a DNA test, to prove their case.

Consequently, the court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order for the DNA test, and dismissed the application. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish a strong prima facie case for ordering the DNA test. This ruling highlights the significance of a strong prima facie case, the protection of privacy rights, and the need for a balanced approach in paternity dispute cases.

2023 Decided on: 29.05.2023

Vijay Kumar Garg @ Dee Cee Gharianwala vs Kajal @ Nicky and Another

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Vijay-Vs-Kajal-29-May-P^0H-HC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News