Introduction:

In a noteworthy decision, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition challenging a trial court’s order directing DNA profiling in a property partition suit. Mohammed Refeeq, the defendant, contested the order requiring him and the plaintiff, S. Mohammed Fairoz Ahamed, to undergo DNA testing to determine their paternity relationships. The court, led by Justice M G Uma, emphasized the importance of the plaintiff’s right to establish familial connections and noted that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant by conducting the DNA profiling.

Arguments of Both Sides:

S. Mohammed Fairoz Ahamed, the plaintiff in the partition suit, sought to establish his relationship with the defendants through DNA profiling, as he lacked a birth certificate or other documents proving his paternity. The defendant, Mohammed Refeeq, contested the DNA testing, claiming that the plaintiff was brought up by another individual who is his biological father. The court considered the plaintiff’s application under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Code of Procedure for blood sample collection and DNA profiling.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice M G Uma, in dismissing Mohammed Refeeq’s petition, highlighted the plaintiff’s right to seek the status of family members and claim a share in the suit property. The court underscored that the plaintiff had voluntarily opted for DNA profiling to prove his lineage, and conducting the test would not cause prejudice to the defendant. Emphasizing the scientific approval of DNA profiling, the court stated that such a test reduces controversies over questions of fact, aiding the trial court in arriving at a just decision. The ruling acknowledged the significance of DNA testing in resolving disputes related to familial relationships and property claims.