Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Prathiba M. Singh, J.* held that it did not find any need to grant the prayer for DNA testing as sought by the petitioner. Further, the Court observed that there were no pending matrimonial disputes between the Petitioner 1 and her husband, that necessitated such a prayer to be granted. Moreover, when the petitioner’s husband was not challenging the identity of the petitioner and the children, such a prayer was unwarranted.
Petitioner 1 and her two children, Petitioner 2 and 3 had filed the present writ petition wherein it was submitted that Respondent 3, had casted a doubt on the identity of the Petitioners. Petitioner 1 prayed that Respondent 2 and 3 (husband and father-in-law respectively) should be directed to submit their DNA Sample before the DNA Profiling agency Rohini. The petitioners further submitted that they should be awarded compensation along with the cost of mental pain, agony, and trauma that petitioners and her family went through.
The Court relied on Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women, (2010) 8 SCC 633, wherein the Supreme Court considered the question of when it was appropriate for a court to mandate a paternity test using DNA testing and held that “with regard to DNA testing, the Court should use its discretion only after balancing the interests of the parties, and after considering the ‘eminent need’ and weighing the pros and cons of ordering a DNA test, especially when there was a conflict between the right to privacy of a person, who was being compelled to take the test and duty of the court to reach the truth. Therefore, any order for DNA could be given by the Court only if a strong prima facie case was made out for”.
The Court opined that the prayers sought by the petitioners were extremely vague as it was a settled legal position that DNA testing was to be ordered very sparingly and could not be directed based on the allegations such as those that were made in the present case. Thus, the Court held that it did not find any need to grant the prayer for DNA testing as sought nu the petitioners. Further, the Court observed that there were no pending matrimonial disputes between Petitioner 1 and her husband, that necessitated such a prayer to be granted. Moreover, when the petitioner’s husband was not challenging the identity of the petitioner and the children, such a prayer was unwarranted.
The Court disposed of the petition and held that the petitioners or Respondent 2 were free to approach the Civil Court in accordance with law and seek appropriate relief, if the need existed, in respect of any allegations that the other family members might be raising. If any such proceeding was filed, the same shall proceed in accordance with law.
[Shivani Garg Gujral v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3316, Order dated 26-5-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Pawan Prakash Pathak, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Mehak Nakra, ASC (Civil); Abhishek Khari, Advocate.
