New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that in matrimonial disputes, which involves infidelity allegations, DNA testing of a minor child cannot be used as a shortcut to establish infidelity, as it may interfere with the right to privacy and also cause mental trauma.
A bench comprising justices V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna said: “A court would not be justified in mechanically directing DNA test of a child, in a case where the paternity of a child is not directly an issue, but is merely collateral to the proceeding.”
The bench added that merely because either of the parties have disputed a factum of paternity, it does not mean that the court should direct DNA test or other such test to resolve the controversy.
“The parties should be directed to lead evidence to prove or disprove the factum of paternity and only if the court finds it impossible to draw an inference based on such evidence, or the controversy in the issue cannot be resolved without DNA test, it may direct DNA test and not otherwise,” said the bench.
The bench allowed a woman’s plea challenging the Bombay High Court’s order which affirmed a family court’s direction that one of her two children should undergo DNA test on her husband’s plea alleging her of adulterous relationship with another man in divorce proceedings.
It added that while directing DNA tests as a means to prove adultery, the court is to be mindful of the consequences thereof on the children born out of adultery, including inheritance-related consequences, social stigma, etc.
The bench said: “It is undeniable that a finding as to illegitimacy, if revealed in a DNA test, would at the very least adversely affect the child psychologically. Not knowing who one’s father is creates a mental trauma in a child. One can imagine, if, after coming to know the identity of the biological father, what greater trauma and stress would impact on a young mind.”
The top court said questions surrounding paternity have a significant impact on the identity of a child.
“Routinely ordering DNA tests, particularly in cases where the issue of paternity is merely incidental to the controversy at hand, could, in some cases, even contribute to a child suffering an identity crisis,” it said.
The bench added: “A parent may, in the best interests of the child, choose not to subject a child to a DNA test. It is also antithetical to the fundamentals of the right to privacy to require a person to disclose the medical procedures resorted to in order to conceive.”
In the present case, the husband had caused a DNA test to be conducted at a private laboratory which showed the probability of paternity of the child as zero. The man was certain that the child was born as a result of the adulterous relationship of his wife. However, in order to substantiate his contention regarding infidelity as a ground for divorce, it was necessary to conduct a DNA test which would reveal that he was not the biological father of the child.
The top court stressed that DNA testing cannot be used as a shortcut to establish infidelity that might have occurred over a decade ago or subsequently after the birth of the child.
The top court said: “We are unable to accept that a DNA test would be the only way in which the truth of the matter can be established. The respondent husband has categorically claimed that he is in possession of call recordings/transcripts and the daily diary of the appellant, which may be summoned in accordance with law to prove the infidelity of the appellant.”
(IANS)
