Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

74. The Supreme Court in the case of Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, (2024) 7 SCC 773 has held that the DNA Test was not directed to be conducted purely because of the peculiar facts of matrimonial dispute wherein there was an access between the husband and wife at the time the child was begotten. A word of caution was sounded that while DNA Test may establish the adultery/infidelity relationship which may be impossible otherwise, but each case has to be assessed in its own merits. The DNA Test should be directed only in such cases where it is the only possible evidence and there is possible way to ascertain the truth regarding the adultery. In the peculiar facts of that case, it was held that the DNA was not the only piece of evidence available. Furthermore, it was held that where the person refuses to get the DNA Test done, then the presumption under Section 114 (H) of Indian Evidence Act, would become applicable and an adverse inference may be drawn against the person so refusing.

80. The Respondent had placed reliance on the case of ‗W' vs. ‗H' & Anr.', 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4786, to contend that wherever the issue of paternity of a child is raised, the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, becomes applicable and there can be no direction to test the paternity of the child by taking the blood sample of the Respondent. First and foremost, this Judgment is in a Petition for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act where the divorce was sought on the ground of adultery. It is in that context that the Application for DNA test was filed to establish that the child so born was not from the relationship of the Petitioner and the Respondent. It was observed that while Section 112 of the Evidence Act presumes the legitimacy of the child born to a married woman, is deemed to be legitimate and the said presumption must not be disturbed on „slender‟ materials unless „compulsive and clinching‟ facts are brought to shake the presumption by calling for a DNA examination. It was thus, concluded that the DNA test is not to be directed as a matter of routine and the discretion must be exercised only after balancing the interest of the parties and on due consideration whether for a just decision, DNA test is imminently needed.

89. While there has been much debate in the matrimonial cases where there is a dispute between the husband and wife and the allegations of adultery have been made, the DNA testing which may bastardise the child, may not be in the interest of justice but the same presumptions and the considerations do not prevail in the criminal case, more so, when it is a case of rape. The expediency and the advancement of technology mandates that the blood sample must be taken for DNA analysis.