The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the circumstances under which a court can order a Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) test in matrimonial disputes. The High Court upheld a Family Court’s decision to allow a husband’s plea for a DNA test of a child, primarily to substantiate his allegations of adultery against his wife.

The Court emphasized that when the primary issue at hand is the wife's alleged adultery, and not necessarily the legal status of the child’s legitimacy for the purpose of denying maintenance, the "truth-finding" capability of a DNA test can be invoked.

The case involves a couple with demanding professional lives: the husband is a dedicated soldier serving in the Indian Army, while the wife serves as a Constable with the Madhya Pradesh Police. The marital discord between them has led to a long and drawn-out legal battle, with this being the third divorce petition filed by the husband.

According to the husband's pleadings, his service in the Army meant he was stationed away from his wife for long durations, typically visiting home only once every three to six months. The core of his allegation centers on a specific period in October 2015.

The husband claimed that when he returned home on leave in October 2015, his wife informed him within just four days that she was pregnant. He argued that it was biologically impossible for a pregnancy to be confirmed within such a short window of his return. Furthermore, he pointed out that the child was born within eight months of that October visit. He argued "non-access"—a legal term meaning he had no opportunity for sexual intercourse with his wife during the window when the child would have been conceived.

The wife strongly opposed the DNA test, challenging the Family Court’s order in the High Court. Represented by Advocate Anu Pathak, the wife raised several key legal and ethical arguments:

Right to Privacy: She argued that compelling her and the child to undergo a DNA test would be a direct violation of their fundamental right to privacy.
Child’s Legitimacy: She contended that such a test would cast an "unwarranted shadow of doubt" on the child’s legitimacy and could lead to social stigma and psychological trauma for the young girl.
Strict Standards for DNA Tests: Traditionally, Indian courts are hesitant to order DNA tests because of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act (now reflected in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), which presumes that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate unless "non-access" is proven beyond doubt.

Justice Vivek Jain, after hearing both sides, noted that the husband’s petition was not an attempt to "bastardize" the child or to run away from his legal duty to provide financial support. Instead, the DNA test was sought as a piece of evidence to prove the "ground of adultery" for the dissolution of the marriage.

The judge referred to various Supreme Court precedents which establish that while a DNA test should not be ordered routinely, it is not completely prohibited. The Court noted:

“Where no declaration is sought regarding illegitimacy of the child and the issue only relates to adultery of the wife, then, in appropriate cases, DNA test can be ordered.”

The High Court found that the husband had provided "sufficient pleadings" regarding his absence due to Army duty and the specific timeline of the pregnancy. These facts created a strong enough case to warrant a scientific investigation into the paternity, as it directly impacted the allegation of adultery.

The Court also took a stern view of the procedural history of the case. It noted that the husband had been trying to seek a divorce since 2015, but previous attempts were "scuttled."

Earlier, the wife had reportedly agreed to a divorce by mutual consent, leading the husband to withdraw his contested petition. However, when the time came for the "second motion" (the final step in a mutual consent divorce), the wife failed to appear. This forced the husband to file a fresh, third petition in 2021, which has remained pending for over three years. The Court viewed this history as a factor in favor of allowing the husband to gather the necessary evidence to move his case forward.

One of the most critical aspects of the judgment is the Court’s directive on what happens if the wife refuses to comply with the DNA test order.

While the Court cannot physically force a person to give a blood or tissue sample for DNA testing, the law provides an alternative. Justice Jain observed that if the wife continues to refuse to provide samples, the Family Court is at liberty to draw an "Adverse Inference."

Under Section 114(h) of the Indian Evidence Act (and its modern counterpart in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), if a party refuses to produce evidence that could clarify a fact in issue, the court can "presume" that the evidence, if produced, would have gone against that party. In simpler terms, if she refuses the test, the court can legally assume that the husband’s allegation—that he is not the father—is likely true.

This judgment highlights a shifting trend in Indian family law where scientific accuracy is increasingly being balanced against traditional legal presumptions. While the "presumption of legitimacy" remains a strong shield for children, the High Court has clarified that it cannot be used as a sword to block a spouse from proving a legitimate ground for divorce, such as adultery.

By distinguishing between "challenging legitimacy" and "proving adultery," the Madhya Pradesh High Court has provided a clearer path for litigants who find themselves in complex matrimonial battles involving scientific evidence.

The husband was represented by Advocate Sheetal Tiwari, while the wife was represented by Advocate Anu Pathak.

Case Title: [Name of the Parties withheld to protect the identity of the child]

Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench

Bench: Justice Vivek Jain