Child Has Right To Know His Biological Roots Through Reliable Scientific Tests: Karnataka HC Allows Plea Seeking DNA Test In A Civil Suit

The Karnataka High Court, allowing a petition seeking DNA test in a civil suit, noted that the child is having a right to know his biological roots through reliable scientific tests.

The Dharwad Bench observed thus in a writ petition seeking to quash the order of the Senior Civil Judge.

A Single Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh held, “Right of the child to know the truth of his or her origin was highlighted by stating that the child is having a right to know his biological roots through reliable scientific tests. It is noticed that there is no bar for conducting such DNA test and it will not in violation of the right of life or privacy of a person."

Advocate Prashant V. Mogali appeared for the petitioner while Advocate Avinash Banakar appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the petitioner was the plaintiff before the Trial Court and he filed the suit against the defendant claiming that he was his father and also contented that he was entitled for share in the suit schedule properties and also sought for mesne profits. The suit was registered by the defendants and the defendant No.1 specifically denied that the plaintiff was not the son of him. The Trial Court considering the pleadings of the party, framed the issues and parties were allowed to lead the evidence.

The plaintiff examined himself and four witnesses and the defendant was also examined. An application was filed invoking Order 26 Rule 10(a) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and also Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). The Trial Court came to the conclusion that it is the burden on the plaintiff to prove that he was born to the deceased in the wedlock with the defendant and mere DNA would not suffice to hold that the plaintiff was his son. Hence, the plaintiff approached the High Court.

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “… when the defendant No.1 specifically denies that he is not his son and also specific defense he has taken, he is the son of Basappa Jadar and he has to prove the same and mere taking of defense is not enough. In the case on hand, the plaintiff in order to prove his contention, he sought for DNA test and DNA test is not only substantial piece of evidence and the said DNA test will comes to the aid of the petitioner in order to prove the claim, the fact that he alleged that the defendant No.1 is his father and he has to prove the same. If the same has not been proved, one of the factors goes against him in the suit of relief of partition and separate possession.”

The Court said that the Trial Court ought to have taken note of the fact into consideration and instead of committed an error in coming to the conclusion that burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he is not the son of Basappa Jadar and the Somamma is not the wife of Basappa Jadar and also the plaintiff has to prove that he is the son of defendant No.1 through his mother Somamma.

“When the plaintiff himself is ready to take the result of the DNA test, whether he would be called as bastardised in future or not, under such circumstances, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application and committed an error in rejecting the application and hence, the order impugned requires to be quashed”, it added.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the Trial Court to get the DNA test report by following the procedure.

Cause Title- Chandru v. Huccharayappa Hanumanthappa Hullinakatti & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-D:14209)

Click here to read/download the Judgment