Orissa High Court Upholds Lower Court's Decision To Decline DNA Test In Partition Suit

Bhubaneswar: The Orissa High Court has upheld a lower court's decision to decline a DNA test in a partition suit, citing that directing such a test would be an insult to the mother's dignity and contrary to Section 112 of the Evidence Act. The court stressed on the importance of privacy and dignity in legal proceedings, particularly in family disputes.

According to information, the litigation arose from a partition suit involving a joint family's property, where one party requested a DNA test to determine the parentage of the rival party. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kuchinda, had rejected the prayer, and the Orissa High Court's Single Bench Judge, Justice BP Routray, has now upheld the decision. The judge observed that forcing a person to undergo a DNA test affects their right to privacy, a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Justice Routray noted that in a partition suit, the status of parties as members of a joint family is crucial in determining their respective shares. In this context, a DNA test may not be relevant, especially when the recognition of a person as a son is not solely determined by blood relation but also by societal recognition. The court asserted that directing a DNA test would infringe upon the individual's right to privacy and dignity, which aligns with the Supreme Court's recent rulings, which have set a high bar for ordering DNA tests in paternity disputes, prioritising the protection of individual rights and dignity.

It also came to fore that the defendant in the case is 58 years old, and the trial court had observed that directing a DNA test at this stage would not yield fruitful results. Justice Routray concurred with this assessment, explaining the importance of considering the timing and outcomes of such tests.

The court's decision is grounded in Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which presumes a child born during a valid marriage to be the legitimate offspring of the husband. 

The presumption can only be rebutted by proving non-access between the spouses during the relevant period. The SC has recently reinforced this principle, asserting that the burden of proof lies with the party emphasising illegitimacy.

The ruling will further impact family law and paternity disputes in India, outlining the need to balance the pursuit of truth with the protection of individual rights and dignity. 

Notably, the Supreme Court has noted that forcing a person to undergo a DNA test can subject their private life to scrutiny, causing harm to their reputation and mental health.