Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC

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