Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a revision petition filed to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court ordering DNA test of the petitioner, a Single Judge Bench of Archana Puri J. dismissed the same with modification of conducting of the test and held that a child has a right to know his parentage in the context of denial of relationship by the father.
The Court held that the right of privacy of a person cannot override the right of the child, as in case both come out to be strangers then no injustice would have been done to the person undertaking the DNA test.
Background
In the present case, the respondent filed a suit for declaration asserting himself to be son of the petitioner. He filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) through his mother as he was a minor at the time. By the written statement filed to the same, the petitioner denied the parentage and stated that the respondent was not his biological son.
The Trial Court allowed the application for conducting of the DNA test of the petitioner. Further, the Court also stated that the police assistance was found absolutely necessary, then a direction was issued to the police to offer help with reasonable care, in case resistance was made by the petitioner. Aggrieved from the same, the petitioner came before the Court.
The petitioner submitted that he couldn’t undergo a DNA test as it would infringe his right of dignity and privacy. On the other hand, the respondent contended that it was in his best interest that the petitioner went through the DNA test as he had the right to know about his parentage and accruing rights, emanating therefrom.
Analysis and Decision
The Court opined that the very language of Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872 clearly stated that there was a need of existing strong presumption that the husband is the father of the child, borne by his wife during the subsistence of their marriage. However, the object of this principle was to prevent any unwarranted inquiry into the parentage of the child.
The Court viewed that it was pertinent to mention that it was the child, who is now major, who has come forth to assert paternity upon the petitioner. The Court opined that considering it, balancing of the interest and the eminent need was required to be looked into. The Court further observed that the respondent had a right to know his parentage in the context of denial of relationship by the petitioner. The Court further held that justice to the respondent was a factor, not to be ignored. Rather, his assertion demanded that truth be known, when truth had to be established, as it undoubtedly could be.
Considering the right to privacy of the petitioner, the Court opined that the right of privacy does not override the right of the child. Further considering that the respondent, being major, was aware of the consequences of the order that it might downsize his and his mother’s position in society and so was his mother, the court opined that the fact that they still came forward had to be considered.
The Court held that DNA test is surer test to affix the paternity and if the petitioner and the respondent are strangers in any manner, no injustice shall be done to the petitioner by conducting this test. Also, if he was the father, his position would be put beyond doubt by the testing and the paternity as pleaded shall be ascertained.
Further, the Court opined that the evidence was to be led by both the sides, but the question arose, when the paternity could be affixed by surer test, then why decision based on legal presumption or gathering of inference, on the basis of the evidence or any gap, on account of misjudgment, be left.
The Court further held that use of compel, or assistance of the police as ordered by the Trial Court, need not to be carried out, however, the compliance and non-compliance will be recorded by the Trial Court.
[Anil Kumar Garg v. Sahil Garg, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 5711, decided on 12-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Akshay Jindal and Vijayveer Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents: Nandan Jindal and Aniket Singla, Advocates
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
