Delhi High Court Upholds DNA Test Order to Determine Paternity of Three Children
On Friday, the Delhi High Court in New Delhi upheld a trial court's order directing a man to undergo a DNA paternity test, ruling that a child's right to know their biological parentage outweighs the social stigma or reputational concerns of adults.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma delivered the verdict, emphasizing that children cannot become casualties of adult choices. The court noted that determining a child's parentage is fundamental to their identity, dignity, and legal entitlements, including maintenance.
The ruling came after a man challenged a March 2024 trial court order that directed DNA testing for him and three children. The children were born to a woman who claimed to be his wife and had sued him for maintenance.
According to court details, the man married his first wife in Bihar in February 1986. However, another woman alleged that she married him in Delhi in May 1991 and that they had three children together. She claimed they lived as husband and wife until he abandoned her and the children in 2005 and failed to provide maintenance.
The man denied the allegations, disputed the alleged marriage, and challenged the trial court's decision permitting the DNA testing to establish paternity.
Representing the man, advocate Babita Seth argued that conducting a DNA test would cause grave injustice and damage his reputation, noting that his legally wedded wife holds a public office. She contended that the judicial process should not force a test that could cause embarrassment.
In response, the woman's advocate, Sarthak Karol, argued that the DNA test went to the root of the dispute in the maintenance proceedings, as the man had consistently denied both the marriage and paternity. He stated that determining paternity was foundational to adjudicating the claim for maintenance.
In her 32-page judgment, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the law cannot permit adults to enjoy the privileges of personal choice while shifting the resulting burdens onto children born from those choices. She stated that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty must be accompanied by personal accountability.
The High Court concluded that under these specific circumstances, the direction for DNA testing was not a mechanical exercise of jurisdiction and upheld the trial court's order.
