Introduction:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court while dealing with a sensitive matrimonial dispute involving allegations of adultery and paternity upheld the order of the Family Court directing a DNA test of a minor girl child, holding that when a husband specifically pleads non access during the period of conception and seeks the test only to establish adultery and not to escape parental responsibility, such scientific examination can be lawfully directed, and Justice Vivek Jain clarified that the right to privacy though constitutionally protected is not absolute and must sometimes yield to the larger interest of justice and truth, especially in matrimonial disputes where the foundation of marriage itself is under challenge, as the case arose from a petition filed by a husband who was serving in the Indian Army and whose wife was working as a constable in the Madhya Pradesh Police, and according to the husband he was called by the wife in October 2015 and stayed for a very brief period of four days, after which he returned to duty, and within those four days the wife allegedly informed him that she was pregnant, which according to him was biologically impossible to be detected within such a short span, and further he pleaded that the child was born within eight months of October 2015, which according to him clearly established that conception had occurred prior to his visit, thereby indicating non access at the relevant time and pointing towards adulterous conduct by the wife, and based on these factual assertions he filed a divorce petition on the ground of adultery and sought DNA testing of the child only for the limited purpose of proving the ground of divorce and not to dispute his maintenance obligations, and the Family Court allowed the application which was challenged by the wife before the High Court.

Arguments of the Wife:

The wife strongly opposed the DNA test contending that such an order would violate her fundamental right to privacy as well as the bodily integrity and identity rights of the minor child, and she argued that forcing a child to undergo genetic testing would cause social stigma, emotional trauma, and long term psychological harm, and reliance was placed on constitutional jurisprudence recognising privacy as an intrinsic part of Article 21 and also on international conventions protecting the rights of children to dignity, identity and protection from intrusive procedures, and it was further submitted that under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act there is a strong presumption of legitimacy of a child born during subsistence of a valid marriage and such presumption can be displaced only by proof of non access, and she contended that ordering DNA test amounts to fishing inquiry and that courts must exercise extreme restraint before permitting such tests because they have irreversible consequences on family relationships, and it was also argued that the husband was trying to malign her character by raising baseless allegations and that scientific tests should not be allowed to become tools for harassment in matrimonial conflicts.

Arguments of the Husband:

The husband on the other hand contended that his case was not based on vague suspicion but on specific and detailed pleadings supported by timeline of events that made conception during his visit impossible, and he argued that he had clearly pleaded non access during the probable period of conception and therefore he had discharged the threshold requirement under law for rebutting the presumption of legitimacy, and it was emphasized that he was not seeking any declaration regarding illegitimacy of the child nor was he attempting to avoid legal responsibility towards the child, but that the DNA test was sought only to establish the wife’s adultery which is a legally recognised ground for divorce, and he further submitted that denial of DNA testing in such circumstances would deprive him of the only effective scientific means to prove his allegation and would result in grave injustice, and that balancing of rights requires that the right to fair trial and access to justice must also be given due weight alongside privacy considerations.

Court’s Judgment:

The High Court after examining the pleadings and legal principles upheld the Family Court’s order and held that this was a fit case where DNA testing was justified because the husband had specifically pleaded non access and had provided plausible factual foundation for seeking scientific verification, and the Court observed that the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is strong but not irrebuttable and when there are specific allegations and circumstances suggesting impossibility of access, courts are not powerless to order scientific tests to arrive at the truth, and Justice Vivek Jain clarified that the present case was not one where the husband sought to brand the child as illegitimate or escape parental obligations but was only seeking proof to establish adultery as a matrimonial ground, and therefore the balance of equities was different from cases where paternity is challenged to avoid maintenance or inheritance, and the Court further held that while the right to privacy is fundamental, it cannot be used as a shield to suppress relevant evidence in judicial proceedings when justice demands factual determination, and it was observed that family courts are duty bound to ascertain truth and that modern scientific tools cannot be excluded when they are the most reliable means of resolving serious factual disputes, and the Court also noted that the alleged timeline of pregnancy and birth as pleaded by the husband prima facie raised serious doubt which could not be brushed aside without investigation, and it concluded that when necessary pleadings of non access exist and no declaration of illegitimacy is sought, DNA testing can be ordered in appropriate cases to prove adultery, and therefore dismissed the wife’s challenge and upheld the direction for DNA test, reinforcing that matrimonial justice must be based on truth and fairness and that privacy cannot be elevated to an extent that it obstructs legitimate judicial inquiry into serious marital allegations.