Mumbai: Bombay High Court has set aside a civil court’s order for DNA testing on a youth’s claim that he is the illegitimate son of a deceased hotelier and entitled to one-fifth of his properties.
Court Clarifies DNA Testing Protocol in Paternity Cases
Justice Sandeep Marne addressed the legal standards for DNA testing in paternity cases on Tuesday. He stated that courts should not routinely order DNA tests. Instead, parties involved must first establish the fact of paternity through evidence. A DNA test may only be ordered if the court cannot reach a conclusion based on the available evidence and finds it necessary to resolve the dispute. This ruling came in response to a petition filed by the legal heirs of a hotelier, including his wife and three children.
The teenager in 2016 (then 9 years old) filed a partition suit, through his mother, in Nashik civil court. The hotelier passed away in May 2016. After his family denied the plaintiff’s claim of being his illegitimate son, in March 2018 he applied for a DNA test to prove it. The trial court, on Sept 4, 2018, directed the regional forensic science laboratory to conduct a DNA test of the plaintiff and any of the three children.
He stated that due to the extramarital relationship between the hotelier and his mother, he was born in Feb 2007. The family moved HC.
Justice Marne said the plaintiff would have to lead evidence to prove his various averments, including the extramarital relationship and that his birth is attributable only to it. “Mere assertion by the plaintiff and denial thereof by defendants cannot be a reason for the court to undertake the exercise of collection of evidence by directing parties to DNA test,” he added. Referring to the law on DNA testing, Justice Marne said “it should be considered only in exceptional and deserving cases where evidence is insufficient to resolve the controversy. However, he granted the teenager liberty to apply afresh for a DNA test after “demonstrating that evidence on record makes it impossible for the trial court to decide the controversy.”