When no declaration is sought regarding illegitimacy of the child and the issue only relates to adultery of the wife, DNA test can be ordered, the Court said.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has confirmed a lower court’s directive allowing a husband to undergo DNA testing to establish the paternity of a child born during his marriage. Presiding over the matter, Justice Vivek Jain clarified that the husband’s objective in seeking this scientific validation was not to escape his legal obligation to provide child maintenance. Rather, the genetic evidence was requested specifically to substantiate allegations of his wife’s infidelity. The court further noted that according to Supreme Court precedents, DNA testing is a permissible evidentiary tool in matrimonial disputes provided the primary goal is to prove adultery rather than to formally declare a child illegitimate.
“In the present case, sufficient pleadings are there in the divorce petition in Para-4 wherein the respondent husband has pleaded that he is in Indian Army and was called in October, 2015 by the wife who is Constable in MP Police. Within four days he was informed that by the wife that she is pregnant and she has conceived a child which could not have been known to the wife within four days of the husband returning from his duty in army. It is further pleaded that the child was born within 8 months of October, 2015 and there is clear pleading of non-access at the time when the child was conceived,” the High Court said.
In a case involving an Army serviceman and a Madhya Pradesh Police constable, the court found sufficient grounds to authorize a paternity test based on the husband’s claims of limited physical proximity. The husband asserted that his military service restricted his visits to his spouse to only once every few months, making his fatherhood biologically improbable. While the wife resisted the move, citing concerns over the child’s privacy and the social stigma of questioned legitimacy, the bench ruled in favor of the testing. The court’s decision was influenced by the complex history of the couple’s separation, noting that this was the husband’s third attempt at a divorce and that a previous filing had been derailed after the wife allegedly reneged on a mutual consent agreement.
“Then the application for mutual consent was filed in which the wife did not appear for second motion and now this third divorce petition has been filed which is also pending since the year 2021,” it added.
Ultimately, the Court rejected the wife’s appeal against the lower court’s ruling, maintaining that the husband’s request was legally sound. The bench clarified that while the wife could theoretically refuse to provide the necessary DNA samples, such an action would carry significant legal consequences. In the event of non-compliance, the family court is authorized to invoke a “negative inference” against her under Section 114(h) of the Indian Evidence Act—or the equivalent section of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam—effectively assuming the truth of the husband’s claims due to her refusal to provide evidence.
The legal proceedings featured Advocate Anu Pathak appearing on behalf of the wife, while the husband’s interests were represented by Advocate Sheetal Tiwari. By upholding the order, the court underscored that scientific verification serves as a critical tool in resolving disputes of this nature, especially when one party’s conduct prevents the standard collection of proof.
