Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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