Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Allowing 26-Yr-Old’s Plea For DNA Test To Prove Her Mother’s Former Live-In-Partner Is Her Father

Observing that a DNA test cannot be ordered in a manner that leads to a roving inquiry, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the order of a Family Court where in it had allowed a 26-year-old woman's application for DNA test to prove that her mother's former live-in partner is her actual father. 

“The law regarding DNA is well settled. Courts in India cannot order blood test as a matter of course. In the present case the parties have admittedly already led their evidence in support of their respective stands as taken in the Court. The defendant No.1-petitioner (alleged father) cannot be compelled to adduce evidence in support of the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 (daughter),” said Justice Alka Sarin.

The burden lies on the litigating party to prove his or her case by adducing evidence in support of his or her plea and a party cannot be compelled to prove the case in the manner as suggested by the contesting party, the bench added.

The court was hearing the revision petition filed by the alleged father against the order of the family court which had allowed the application of the 'daughter' for DNA test to prove her parentage.

In 2017, a declaratory suit was filed by the daughter stating that she was born during the live-in relationship of the petitioner and her mother. Therefore, the petitioner who is alleged father should accept her as his daughter, she said.

It was further stated that she was always treated as the petitioner's daughter. However, in 2015, the relationship between her mother and the alleged father became strained, and thereafter he refused to accept her as his daughter. Her mother also filed an application for maintenance. 

During the pendency of the suit, an application for a DNA test was filed by the daughter to prove that she is the petitioner's daughter. The same was accepted by the Family Court.

The petitioner argued that despite all the evidence being presented, not a single document has been filed as evidence that would even remotely demonstrate that she is his daughter. On the other hand, the 'daughter' argued that no prejudice would be caused in case the DNA test is carried out to prove the parentage of the petitioner and rather the said test would enable the Trial Court to decide the suit properly.

Setting aside the order for DNA test, Justice Sarin said: “A DNA test cannot be ordered so as to lead to a roving enquiry. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 (daughter) has failed to make out a strong prima facie case for ordering the DNA test along with that of the defendant No.1- petitioner.”

Case Title: X v. Y

Appearance: Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Surinder Garg, Advocate for the respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment