Karnataka high courtupholds DNA test order as key to fair resolution in paternity case

Bengaluru: The Kalaburagi bench of theKarnatak high court has declined to cancel a DNA test order in a paternity dispute, stating that the test is crucial for resolving the claim of a schoolteacher who argues that a woman is not his wife and her daughter is not his child.The bench dismissed a petition from Chidanand, a schoolteacher from Devara Hipparagi in the Sindagi taluk of Vijayapura district.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum ruled that when foundational facts such as marriage and paternity are contested, the revisional court is entitled to adopt necessary measures for effective adjudication. He emphasised that the DNA test order aims to conclusively resolve the very disputes raised by Chidanand, and thus, no prejudice has been demonstrated.On July 10, 2025, the 4th district and sessions court in Vijayapura granted an interim application filed by the woman, directing Chidanand to undergo a DNA test after he claimed that she was not his wife and that the girl in question was not his daughter.In a previous petition filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the local court ordered Chidanand to pay Rs 5,000 per month in maintenance to each of the two claimants. He later appealed this order before the district and sessions court.However, Justice Magadum rejected Chidanand's argument that the district and sessions court lacked the authority to issue a DNA test direction in revisional proceedings. The judge noted that the order is beneficial to the petitioner and is essential to resolve contested factual issues. The judge pointed out that, although the local court had ordered maintenance payments in 2020, "not a single rupee" had been paid by Chidanand in the last five years, characterising his petition as an attempt to further delay and frustrate the maintenance proceedings.The judge observed that in proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC, where a husband disputes either the marital relationship or the paternity of a child, the court has the authority to order a DNA test. He referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik vs Lata Nandlal Badwaik, which stated that "when scientific evidence such as DNA profiling is available, the court cannot be compelled to shut its eyes to the truth." Justice Magadum also cited the case Dipanwita Roy vs. Ronobroto Roy, where the Supreme Court recognised DNA testing as "the most legitimate and scientifically accurate method to establish paternity." The judge remarked that various high ourts have similarly affirmed that DNA testing is permissible when essential for adjudicating maintenance claims while upholding the Vijayapura order.

Get an chance to win ₹5000 Amazon Voucher by taking part in India's Biggest Habit Index! Take the survey here