DNA Test Can Be Ordered Only If A Strong Prima Facie Case Is Established: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court reiterated that to exercise the power of directing the conduct of a DNA test not merely a prima facie case but a strong prima facie case has to be established.
The Court said that there should also be sufficient material before the Court justifying a request for DNA analysis.
The Court was hearing a petition challenging the order of the Court allowing the application for the conduct of a sibling DNA test.
The bench of Justice C. Jayachandran observed, “…that to exercise the power of directing the conduct of a DNA test, the applicant has to establish, not merely a prima facie case but a strong prima facie case, and there should be sufficient material before the Court justifying a request for DNA analysis being allowed.”
Brief Facts-
The plaintiff claimed that the property in question belonged to her father, who married her mother. She asserted that she is their daughter and that the defendants are children from Nair's later marriage. The defendants refuted her claim. The plaintiff requested a sibling DNA test to prove her parentage. The trial Court allowed the DNA test, which the defendants challenged.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court propounded “the test of eminent need” in deciding the question whether an application for DNA test has to be allowed or not in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and Others [2010 (8) SCC 633] and quoted, “when there is apparent conflict between the right to privacy of a person not to submit himself forcibly to medical examination and duty of the court to reach the truth, the court must exercise its discretion only after balancing the interests of the parties and on due consideration whether for a just decision in the matter, DNA is eminently needed. DNA in a matter relating to paternity of a child should not be directed by the court as a matter of course or in a routine manner, whenever such a request is made. The court has to consider diverse aspects including presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act; pros and cons of such order and the test of 'eminent need' whether it is not possible for the court to reach the truth without use of such test.”
The Court further mentioned the decision in Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy [2015 (1) SCC 365] where according to the Court the Supreme Court concluded, “it is quite permissible for a Court to direct the DNA examination to determine the veracity of one of the allegations constituting a ground, on which a party would either succeed or lose. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gives a caveat that, if the direction to hold such a test can be avoided, it should be so avoided.”
The Court said, “there is absolutely no dearth of power for a Court, be it civil, matrimonial or otherwise to direct the DNA analysis, provided the outcome of the test would prove/disprove one of the grounds based upon which a party may either succeed or lose.”
The Court also observed, “the desirability of having a DNA test conducted would depend upon the facts and circumstances in which it is sought for and especially in the context of the relief prayed for.”
“The consideration to be received at the hands of the court for an application to conduct DNA analysis differs from each other (i) in a case where the husband alleges adultery, where DNA analysis is sought for to prove such allegation/ground of adultery, (ii) in a case where the husband as a defense in matrimonial matter alleges non access to disown the paternity of the child, (iii) in a case where an application for DNA test is opposed disputing the very existence of the marriage claimed.”, the Court added.
After going through the evidence adduced the Court noted that the plaintiff could not establish a strong prima facie case in proving a valid marriage.
Finally, the Court observed, “one cannot seek a DNA test to be done only in his/her attempt to fish out evidence in support of his case.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order and allowed the present Original Petition.
Cause Title: Gangadharan v. Sreedevi Amma (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:33151)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Santheep Ankarath and P Anirudhan
Respondent: Adv. Vinod Bhat S, Adv. Anagha Lakshmy Raman, Adv. V. Namitha and Adv. Greeshma Chandrika R
