The Karnataka High Court recently held that trial courts cannot order paternity tests by merely stating that the welfare of the child in question is paramount [Filix Miller and Felix Miller v. xxx].
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti said that the trial court did not provide sufficient reasoning as to why hard scientific evidence was needed, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph.
"The trial Court has not addressed the petitioner's constitutional objection through this balancing exercise. Merely observing that the welfare of the child is paramount does not answer whether the proposed examination is necessary and proportionate."
The High Court thus set aside a family court order that directed a man to undergo a DNA test in order to determine whether he was the biological father of a child in a maintenance petition filed by the child.
The minor child had filed the petition for maintenance and was represented through his mother. During the pendency of the case, the mother filed an interim application seeking a DNA test in order to determine paternity, since the father denied having fathered the child. The family court directed the minor and the father to provide their blood samples in order to determine paternity.
The father appealed the decision before the High Court, stating an earlier civil court order had rejected the mother's application seeking a DNA test. He argued that the family court directing the same would be an abuse of the process of law.
Counsel appearing for the minor child and mother argued the child had a right to know her biological parentage as an integral part of her right to dignity, identity and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. He contended that the previous rejection did not amount to a bar to seek the test out in another case.
After noting the father's admission that he had had physical relations with the mother, the High Court said that a DNA examination could not be ordered by the lower court when sufficient evidence was already available.
Outlining the fine balance between the privacy and bodily autonomy of the father and the child's welfare, the Court said that rejecting the test did not entail alleging that the biological relationship between the father and son did not exist.
"The court may decline such an examination because the evidence already available is sufficient, because the request is premature, or because the circumstances do not justify interfering with the privacy of the person concerned. Rejection of such an application does not invariably amount to a finding that the alleged biological relationship does not exist."
It further said,
"The obligation of a father toward his child does not depend on whether he was married to the mother. A child cannot be denied financial support merely because the relationship between the parties did not have the sanction of marriage."
The Court said that the trial court would have to satisfy the principles laid down by the Supreme Court before ordering such a test.
It thus set aside the family court order and directed it to reconsider the application after considering the facts afresh to determine the need for DNA testing.
Advocates Ravinson M and Denny Muthiah appeared for the father.
Advocates Mithun U, Shubhasri MV and Usha Reddy KP represented the minor child and the mother.
[Read Order]