“The welfare of the child, important as it is, cannot be treated as a substitute for the judicial inquiry required before directing DNA examination,” the Karnataka High Court has held, setting aside a Bengaluru Family Court order that had directed a DNA paternity test of a man and a minor boy in a maintenance case.
Bengaluru: Before directing a DNA test, a Family Court must first examine whether paternity can be decided on the other evidence available, and whether the intrusion into privacy is necessary and proportionate, the Karnataka High Court has ruled. Finding that this exercise had not been done, the Court set aside the order for a DNA paternity test and sent the application back for fresh consideration [Filix Miller and Felix Miller v. XXX].
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti pronounced the order on November 3, 2026, having reserved the writ petition on September 28, 2026.
Back to the Family Court
The High Court set aside the March 18, 2026 order and remanded the application. The Family Court must examine the effect of the earlier civil proceedings, the statutory presumption of legitimacy if applicable, the evidence otherwise available to decide paternity, and whether DNA testing is necessary. If it finds a scientific examination necessary, it must record reasons showing that other evidence cannot resolve the dispute and that the intrusion on privacy is proportionate. The application is to be decided expeditiously, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.
How the dispute reached the High Court
The respondent mother had filed Crl. Misc. No. 63 of 2025 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, seeking maintenance for her minor son. In those proceedings, an application (I.A. No. 5) under Section 45 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 asked for a DNA test to determine the biological relationship between the child and the petitioner. On March 18, 2026, the Family Court allowed it, relying on the child’s welfare and the petitioner’s admission of a physical relationship with the mother.
The petitioner, a 56-year-old Bengaluru resident, challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227. His counsel argued that a DNA test is not a matter of course, that a statement in a reply notice had been wrongly treated as a conclusive admission, that a civil court had already rejected an identical DNA application which had attained finality, and that the order allowed a roving and fishing inquiry. He relied on Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta.
Welfare is relevant, but not a substitute for inquiry
The High Court accepted that the child’s welfare and the admitted relationship were relevant, and that paternity may need to be decided to settle the maintenance claim. But it held that these factors do not by themselves establish the “imminent need” for a DNA test explained in Ivan Rathinam.
“Nevertheless, the welfare of the child, important as it is, cannot be treated as a substitute for the judicial inquiry required before directing DNA examination.”
The trial court, the High Court said, had to consider whether the mother could prove the relationship through other evidence, such as the period of the admitted relationship, the birth of the child and any acknowledgment of parentage. Only if that evidence could not resolve the dispute would a DNA test become necessary.
Privacy and bodily autonomy
On the objection under Article 21, the Court said DNA testing involves biological material capable of revealing sensitive genetic information, so the petitioner’s privacy and bodily autonomy are directly engaged. Citing Sharda v. Dharampal and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, it held that the intrusion must meet the tests of legitimacy, necessity and proportionality.
“The fact that he has accepted the physical relationship does not amount to consent for a DNA examination or surrender of his constitutional rights. At the same time, the petitioner cannot claim absolute immunity from the scientific examination merely by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
“Merely observing that the welfare of the child is paramount does not answer whether the proposed examination is necessary and proportionate.”
Why the judgment matters
DNA applications are now common in maintenance cases, and Family Courts often allow them by invoking the child’s welfare. This order makes clear that welfare explains why paternity is relevant, not why a DNA test is the only way to prove it. Courts must first weigh the available evidence and record a reasoned finding of necessity and proportionality, keeping the putative father’s privacy in view alongside the child’s claim.
Case Title: Filix Miller and Felix Miller v. XXX [Writ Petition No. 11719 of 2026 (GM-FC)], 2026:KHC:61121
Bench: Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: November 3, 2026
For the Petitioner: Ravinson M., Advocate
For the Respondent: Mithun U. and Shubhasri M.V., Advocates, for Usha Reddy K.P., Advocate