Legal Provisions Involved: Section 125 CrPC (maintenance) and Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 116 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).

Judgment by: Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench.

Judge/Bench: Justice Rajesh Rai K.

Facts

The couple got married on 25 May 2022 and later had a child. Due to disputes, the wife filed a case seeking maintenance. During the proceedings, the husband asked the court to order a DNA test, saying he had doubts about being the child’s biological father. He admitted that they were legally married and had stayed together after marriage, but claimed that they lived together only for a short time.

The Family Court refused the request, stating that since they had lived together as husband and wife, the child’s paternity cannot be doubted so easily. The court also felt that the plea was made to avoid paying maintenance.

Key Legal Provisions

Section 125 CrPC (maintenance) (now Section 144 of BNSS, 2023) and Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 116 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023)

Issues Raised

Can a husband demand a DNA test in a maintenance case just because he has doubts about paternity?

Arguments of the case

The husband wanted scientific proof before taking financial responsibility. The wife relied on the legal presumption that the child born during marriage is legitimate.

Judgment

The High Court agreed with the Family Court and dismissed the petition. It said DNA tests should not be ordered in a routine manner and only in rare cases where it is absolutely necessary.

Click here to VIEW the full judgment.