Introduction:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling concerning paternity disputes and the scope of DNA testing in civil proceedings, has held that a party cannot seek a DNA test merely to disprove the paternity of a daughter in a partition suit. The Court observed that a litigant disputing the legitimacy or paternity of a child must establish such claims through legally admissible evidence and cannot insist upon compulsory DNA testing as a matter of right.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao in Saradaga Narasayya Reddy v. Dingu Kanaka Mahalakshmi, Civil Revision Petition No. 1339 of 2026. The Court dismissed a revision petition filed against an order of the trial court which had rejected an application seeking DNA testing of the respondent in a partition dispute.

The dispute arose out of a civil suit instituted by the respondent seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The respondent claimed entitlement to a share in the ancestral properties on the ground that she was the biological daughter of the petitioner. However, the petitioner denied her status as his daughter and contended that she was in fact the daughter of his elder brother.

In order to substantiate this contention, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction for DNA testing. According to him, scientific examination would conclusively determine the issue of paternity and resolve the dispute regarding the respondent’s entitlement to the properties.

The trial court, however, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing a civil revision petition contending that the trial court had erred in refusing the request for DNA analysis.

The matter before the High Court therefore raised an important legal question concerning the circumstances under which courts may permit DNA testing in civil disputes involving inheritance and legitimacy. The case also involved a balancing exercise between scientific evidence on one hand and the legal presumption of legitimacy attached to children born during a valid marriage on the other.

The Court examined the issue against the backdrop of constitutional concerns relating to privacy, dignity, and the social consequences of branding a child illegitimate. In doing so, the Court relied upon important precedents of the Supreme Court, including Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia and Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, both of which caution courts against directing DNA tests in a routine manner.

The ruling reiterates that while scientific advancements have made DNA testing a powerful evidentiary tool, such tests cannot automatically override legal presumptions and social considerations embedded in family law. The decision also highlights that the rights and welfare of the child remain central in disputes involving questions of paternity.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner strongly argued that the respondent was not his biological daughter and therefore had no legal right to claim partition in the suit schedule properties. According to him, the respondent was actually the daughter of his elder brother and had falsely projected herself as his daughter solely to claim a share in the ancestral properties.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue of paternity went to the root of the partition dispute and therefore required scientific determination through DNA profiling. It was argued that without resolving the question of biological relationship, the court would not be able to effectively adjudicate the respondent’s claim for partition and inheritance.

The petitioner filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction to subject the respondent to DNA testing. He contended that scientific evidence would conclusively establish the truth and avoid prolonged litigation based on oral allegations and conflicting testimonies.

Another important submission made by the petitioner was that the respondent had allegedly refused to undergo DNA testing despite the fact that the test could clarify the issue once and for all. It was argued that such refusal warranted an adverse inference against her. According to the petitioner, if the respondent genuinely believed herself to be his daughter, she would have no reason to oppose the scientific examination.

The petitioner therefore maintained that the trial court had committed a serious error in dismissing the application and failing to appreciate that DNA testing would assist the court in arriving at a just conclusion regarding paternity and inheritance rights.

On the other hand, the respondent opposed the application for DNA testing and defended the trial court’s order rejecting the plea. Though the detailed submissions of the respondent are not elaborately recorded in the summary, it was evident that the respondent maintained her claim of being the petitioner’s daughter and asserted her entitlement to a share in the properties.

The respondent’s position was implicitly supported by settled legal principles protecting legitimacy and discouraging routine interference with the status of children born during valid marital relationships. The respondent resisted the attempt to compel DNA testing, which would have serious personal, social, and legal consequences.

The case therefore presented competing considerations before the Court — the petitioner’s demand for scientific determination of paternity on one side and the legal and constitutional protections surrounding legitimacy, dignity, and privacy on the other.

The issue assumed further significance because the dispute arose in the context of a partition suit rather than matrimonial litigation. Unlike matrimonial disputes where paternity may directly arise as a central issue, the present matter concerned inheritance rights in civil proceedings.

The Court was therefore required to determine whether DNA testing could be compelled merely because one party sought to deny paternity in order to defeat the inheritance claim of another.

Court’s Judgment:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order of the trial court rejecting the request for DNA testing. Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao categorically held that the petitioner could not seek DNA testing merely to disprove the respondent’s claim of being his daughter in a partition suit.

The Court observed that even if the petitioner disputed the respondent’s biological relationship, he was required to establish his case through other legally admissible evidence rather than insisting upon compulsory DNA examination.

Justice Rao made it clear that a DNA test cannot be ordered as a matter of routine merely because one party alleges absence of biological relationship. The Court held:

“Even assuming that the respondent is not a daughter of the petitioner herein. The petitioner cannot file an application to send the respondent for DNA test particularly when the plaintiff is claiming partition of the suit schedule properties to prove that the respondent is not a daughter of the petitioner. He has to adduce the evidence in any other manner to prove that the respondent is not the daughter of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot seek a DNA test.”

The Court emphasised that disputes relating to paternity must be approached cautiously because of the serious social and legal consequences that may follow. Branding a child as illegitimate not only affects inheritance rights but also impacts dignity, social status, and emotional well-being.

In reaching its conclusion, the High Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia reported in (2024) 7 SCC 773. In that judgment, the Supreme Court had held that courts must examine requests for DNA testing from the perspective of the child rather than the parents. The welfare, dignity, and psychological interests of the child must remain paramount while deciding such applications.

The High Court also relied upon the landmark decision in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1993 SC 2295, wherein the Supreme Court cautioned against routine directions for blood tests or DNA examinations. The Supreme Court in Goutam Kundu had recognised the strong presumption of legitimacy available under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of children born during the subsistence of a valid marriage.

Section 112 embodies an important principle of family law by protecting the legitimacy of children and preventing unnecessary challenges to their status. The provision creates a conclusive presumption regarding legitimacy unless non-access between spouses during the relevant period is established.

The High Court observed that permitting indiscriminate DNA testing would dilute this statutory presumption and could result in social stigma and emotional trauma for children. Therefore, courts must exercise extreme caution before directing scientific tests affecting paternity.

Justice Rao further clarified that while DNA evidence may in certain exceptional situations become relevant, such testing cannot be used as a fishing inquiry or as a convenient tool to unsettle established familial relationships in property disputes.

Importantly, the Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that adverse inference should be drawn against the respondent for refusing DNA testing. The Court implicitly recognised that refusal to undergo such invasive examination cannot automatically lead to adverse conclusions, particularly where the law itself discourages routine DNA testing.

The Court also noted that the burden remained upon the petitioner to establish his defence through appropriate evidence available under law. Oral evidence, documentary records, family history, and other admissible materials could be relied upon to contest the respondent’s claim without compelling DNA analysis.

Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s order, the High Court dismissed the civil revision petition and imposed costs of Rs. 3,000 upon the petitioner.

The judgment is significant because it reinforces judicial restraint in directing DNA tests and upholds the legal presumption of legitimacy under family law. It also reflects the growing judicial emphasis on protecting the dignity and privacy of children in disputes involving paternity.

By refusing to allow DNA testing in a partition suit, the Court reaffirmed that scientific evidence, though valuable, cannot be permitted to override constitutional values, statutory presumptions, and human dignity without compelling necessity.

The ruling serves as an important reminder that courts must carefully balance the search for truth with the protection of individual rights and social stability in sensitive family disputes.