The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a husband cannot demand DNA tests of his children to prove his wife’s alleged adultery. The Court stressed that children cannot be used as tools in marital disputes and their rights must be protected.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused a husband’s request to conduct DNA tests on his two children to prove allegations of adultery against his wife, making it clear that children cannot be dragged into matrimonial disputes as evidence.
In its order dated March 12, Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao firmly held that the rights and dignity of children must be protected, even in cases involving serious allegations between spouses. The Court observed that using children as a means to establish claims of infidelity is legally impermissible and morally inappropriate.
“For the purpose of proving the wife is adultery, the petitioner (husband) cannot seek a DNA of his children,”
the Court stated.
The case arose from a divorce petition filed by the husband, who claimed that his wife had deserted him for more than two years. During the proceedings, he sought permission to conduct DNA tests on their two children, arguing that the results would prove he was not their biological father and would support his allegation that his wife had committed adultery.
However, the trial court rejected this request. Challenging that decision, the husband approached the High Court, insisting that such testing was necessary for a fair trial.
The High Court, however, did not accept this argument. It emphasized that children cannot be treated as tools to settle personal disputes between parents. The Court clearly stated that if a husband wishes to prove allegations of adultery, he must rely on other forms of evidence and not involve the children in such a process.
“Even assuming that the wife is committing adultery, the petitioner cannot file an application to send the children for DNA testing, particularly when the children are not claiming any support from the father and are not parties to the case. To prove that his wife is unfaithful, the petitioner has to present evidence in some other way.”
The Court also highlighted the legal presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that a child born during a valid marriage is presumed to be legitimate. This presumption is strong and cannot be easily challenged without compelling reasons.
Further, the Court pointed out that courts have repeatedly cautioned against ordering DNA or blood tests in matrimonial disputes, as such actions can harm the child’s reputation and social standing. Subjecting children to such procedures can have long-term emotional and psychological consequences.
The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, which stressed that decisions regarding DNA testing must prioritize the welfare and best interests of the child, rather than the claims of the parents.
Reinforcing this principle, the Court observed that a child cannot be treated as a “pawn” in legal battles between spouses. The welfare, dignity, and rights of the child must always remain the top priority.
Importantly, the Court also noted that the husband’s divorce petition was based on the ground of desertion and not adultery. Therefore, seeking DNA testing of the children was not directly relevant to the case at hand.
Additionally, since the children were neither parties to the case nor claiming any maintenance from the father, there was no justification to subject them to DNA testing. The Court reiterated that the rights of third parties, especially children, cannot be compromised for the benefit of one parent’s legal strategy.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the husband’s petition and imposed a cost of ₹3,000, directing him to pay the amount to the District Legal Services Authority within three weeks. The Court also warned that failure to comply with this order could lead to civil recovery proceedings, including possible imprisonment.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court: Wife Living in Adultery Cannot Claim Maintenance, Rules Judge
The case was argued by Advocate MMM Krishna Sanapala on behalf of the husband (petitioner), while Advocate Arrabolu Sai Naveen represented the wife (respondent).
This judgment once again reinforces the judiciary’s consistent stand that while matrimonial disputes must be resolved through legal means, the involvement of children in such conflicts must be avoided at all costs, ensuring their dignity, privacy, and well-being are fully protected.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Adultery
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
