DNA test not sufficient to prove marriage, domestic relationship under DV Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that a DNA test conducted to decide the paternity or legitimacy of the child is not in sufficient in proving subsistence of marriage or domestic relationship under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) [Madeswari v K Manickam].Justice Kauser Edappagath held that even if a DNA test is conducted and paternity is proved, that alone is not enough to prove a domestic relationship or marriage and other evidence will have to be adduced to prove the same.“Even if the DNA test is conducted and paternity is proved, that would not help the petitioner to prove the so-called marriage or domestic relationship. No doubt, in appropriate case, the court can order DNA test. However, it is settled that, strong prima facie case is to be made out to compel a person to undergo DNA test and the DNA test must be relevant to decide the fact in issue in a particular case. As stated already, the paternity or legitimacy of the son is not at all a fact in issue in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondent at the court below. The marriage as well as the domestic relationship can be proved by adducing other piece of evidence," the judgment stated..The Court was hearing a petition moved by a woman challenging the order of a Judicial First Class Magistrate who had held that since there is no domestic relationship between the parties, the petitioner is not an aggrieved person as defined under Section 2(d) of the DV Act and, hence, the petition is not maintainable.The petitioner contended before the High Court that conducting DNA test is absolutely necessary to prove her case and her son is ready to undergo the test. Hence, the court below ought to have granted the prayer sought, she submitted.The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the paternity or legitimacy of the son is not an issue to be decided in the DV proceedings pending before the court and, hence, the court below was absolutely justified in rejecting the prayer..The Court noted that the petitioner's case was that she was the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that they had resided together as husband and wife in the shared household.She also alleged that a son was born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent and now the son has attained the age of 35 years.However, the Court said that even if a DNA test is conducted and paternity is proved, that would not help the petitioner to prove the so-called marriage or domestic relationship.The Court, therefore, upheld the trial court order and rejected the prayer of the petitioner to conduct DNA test.The petitioners were represented by advocates Sarath MS and B Premnath. The respondents were represented by advocates Santosh Mathew, Arun Thomas, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Veena Raveendran, Karthika Maria, Sanita Sabu Varghese, Nanda Sanal, Kurian Antony Mathew and Manasa Benny George..[Read Judgment]