DNA Test Not To Be Ordered If Matriculation Certificate Sufficiently Proves Date Of Birth: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that matriculation certificate issued by a school is recognized as sufficient legal proof for determining date of birth. The Court held that DNA test is not necessary where such certificate has not been proved wrong.

Placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held,

“As held in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (supra) order to conduct DNA test could not be passed in a routine manner and it has to be passed only in extraordinary circumstances when there is no other legal basis to determine parentage of person concerned and since in the present case there is a document which is recognized to be sufficient legal proof of determination of date of birth, i.e., matriculation certificate, therefore, no circumstance exist to pass an order for DNA test.”

Factual Background

The land in dispute was in the name of Yaqoob, who has three sons, Shakeel, Jameel and Furkan. The eldest son Shakeel had married with Petitioner 1, Smt. Mobin on 01.03.1997. However, unfortunately he died on 27.07.1997. Petitioner stated that out of the wedlock a daughter was born (Petitioner 2).

Contesting-respondents alleged that the daughter was born from the second wedding of Petitioner-wife after the death of Shakeel. Further, it was alleged by that since petitioner-wife did not take care of Shakeel during his life, he executed a Will in favour of the contesting-respondents, his two brothers.

Petitioners unsuccessfully contested their claims before all the three authorities, i.e., Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation.

Counsel for petitioners argued that parentage of Petitioner-2 that she was born out of wedlock of Petitioner-wife and Shakeel was rejected on the basis of date of birth mentioned in her High School certificate, i.e., 04.05.1999 whereas date of death of Shakeel was 27.07.1997. It was argued that without considering or disputing the parentage certificate, wherein Shakeel was mentioned as her father, it could not be held that he was not her father.

Further, it was argued that other documents on record showing Shakeel has her father were not considered. Lastly it was submitted that by to verify the parentage, a DNA test could be done.

Counsel for contesting-respondents referred to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 wherein educational certificate of High School is considered to be best evidence to determine date of birth. He opposed the DNA test as it could not be ordered under normal circumstances. It was further argued that since the petitioner-wife had remarried, she could not be considered as a legal heir under Section 171 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

High Court Verdict

The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. to hold that “matriculation certificate or birth certificate issued from School would be considered to be best evidence to determine date of birth of a person.”

The Court upheld the finding of the authorities on grounds that no material to the contrary had been brought on record to show that the date of birth mentioned in school certificate was different from the actual date of birth. The Court observed that there was a gap of 615 days between death of Shakeel and date of birth of the daughter, hence, he could not be her father.

The Court placed reliance on Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia wherein the Supreme Court had laid down circumstances in which DNA test of a minor child can be directed to be conducted.

“i. That a DNA test of a minor child is not to be ordered routinely, in matrimonial disputes. Proof by way of DNA profiling is to be directed in matrimonial disputes involving allegations of infidelity, only in matters where there is no other mode of proving such assertions.

ii. DNA tests of children born during the subsistence of a valid marriage may be directed, only when there is sufficient prima-facie material to dislodge the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. Further, if no plea has been raised as to non-access, in order to rebut the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, a DNA test may not be directed.

iii. A Court would not be justified in mechanically directing a DNA test of a child, in a case where the paternity of a child is not directly in issue, but is merely collateral to the proceeding.

iv. Merely because either of the parties have disputed a factum of paternity, it does not mean that the Court should direct DNA test or such other test to resolve the controversy. The parties should be directed to lead evidence to prove or disprove the factum of paternity and only if the Court finds it impossible to draw an inference based on such evidence, or the controversy in issue cannot be resolved without DNA test, it may direct DNA test and not otherwise. In other words, only in exceptional and deserving cases, where such a test becomes indispensable to resolve the controversy the Court can direct such test.

v. While directing DNA tests as a means to prove adultery, the Court is to be mindful of the consequences thereof on the children born out of adultery, including inheritance- related consequences, social stigma, etc.”

The Court observed that matriculation certificate is recognised as sufficient legal proof and therefore, there was no occasion for ordering DNA test of the daughter. The further noted that the daughter who has attained the age of majority has never taken any step to claim her rights over the land in dispute.

Accordingly, the Court held that there can be no changes to the Will at the behest of the petitioners.

Case Title: Smt. Mobin And Another vs. Dy. Director Of Consolidation And 6 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 455 [WRIT - B No. - 2526 of 2023]

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 455

Click Here To Read/Download Order