DNA Test Cannot Be Ordered in Paternity Dispute Without Establishing Necessity, Proportionality: Karnataka HC [Read Order]

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has set aside a Family Court order directing a DNA test to determine paternity of a minor child in a maintenance case, holding that a man’s admission of a physical relationship with the mother and the child’s need for maintenance do not by themselves establish the “eminent need” for such a test, and has remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 

Justice Lalitha Kanneganti delivered the order on 3 November 2026 in Writ Petition No. 11719 of 2026, reserved on 28 September 2026.

The mother had filed Crl. Misc. No. 63/2025 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, seeking maintenance for her minor son. In that case, she moved I.A. No. 5 under Section 45 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, for a DNA test to determine the biological relationship between the child and the man, and the Family Court allowed it on 18.03.2026, directing both to give blood samples. As the case concerns a minor child and a maintenance claim, the parties are referred to here only as the man, the mother and the child.

The man argued that a DNA test is not a matter of course and needs a strong prima facie case, that his alleged statement in a reply notice was wrongly treated as a conclusive admission, that acquaintance or interaction is not proof of paternity, that a competent civil court had already rejected an identical application, and that the mother had initiated multiple proceedings with inconsistent stands. He relied on Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta, Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, Bhabani Prasad Jena, Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha and a recent Karnataka High Court order.

The mother’s counsel said that the Family Court had weighed his admission of a sexual relationship in a reply of 25.03.2024, his acknowledgment of the child, his financial contributions and handwritten assurances over several years, and a specific pleading of non-access of the mother’s first husband. They argued that the earlier suit, for a permanent injunction over immovable property, did not decide paternity and so there was no res judicata, and that a child’s right to know her parentage is part of dignity and identity under Article 21.

The Court recorded the question as whether the child’s welfare, the need for maintenance and the father’s admission of a physical relationship are sufficient grounds for a DNA test, when a similar request had been rejected earlier and the man objects under Article 21. It noted that Section 125(1)(b) CrPC and Section 144(1)(b) BNSS entitle both legitimate and illegitimate children to maintenance, but said that the child’s entitlement and the man’s liability are two distinct matters, the latter to be decided on evidence.

The Court held that the man’s admission of a relationship is relevant but not conclusive proof of paternity, since a relationship between two persons does not by itself establish that the child was fathered by that man. On the earlier civil proceedings, it said that an order refusing a DNA examination is not the same as a final adjudication of paternity, and that res judicata would apply only where paternity had been conclusively decided. It distinguished Ivan Rathinam, in which the presumption of legitimacy had been conclusively decided earlier.

The Court also said that, where a child is born during a valid marriage, the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act cannot be displaced by merely alleging another relationship, as the relevant question is non-access between the spouses. The Family Court, it said, must address whether that presumption arises, depending on the mother’s marital status during the relevant period.

The Court held that the Family Court was right to recognise the relevance of paternity to the maintenance claim, but that welfare and the need for maintenance cannot substitute for the judicial inquiry required before ordering a DNA test. It said that the order did not examine the evidence otherwise available and did not balance the man’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy under Article 21, in line with the Puttaswamy tests of legitimacy, necessity and proportionality. It added that the man cannot claim absolute immunity merely by invoking Article 21, and that his admission is not consent to a DNA test.

The Court accordingly set aside the Family Court’s order of 18.03.2026 and remanded the matter. The Family Court must reconsider the application after examining the effect of the earlier civil proceedings, the applicability of the presumption of legitimacy, the evidence otherwise available and the necessity of a DNA test. If it finds a test necessary, it must record reasons showing that the dispute cannot be resolved by other evidence and that the intrusion is proportionate, and it must decide the application expeditiously, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.

Appearances: For the Petitioner: Sri Ravinson M., Advocate. For the Respondent: Sri Mithun U., Advocate, and Smt. Shubhasri M.V., Advocate, for Smt. Usha Reddy K.P., Advocate.

Case Title: Alleged Father v. Mother (Minor Child), Writ Petition No. 11719 of 2026 (GM-FC)

[Read Order]