The Allahabad High Court issued a ruling stating that a man who denies paternity of his children must either undergo a DNA test or pay maintenance to support the children. The court held that denying maintenance over unresolved paternity issues violates the children’s basic rights
The Allahabad High Court ordered a man must either provide maintenance to his children or undergo a DNA test to verify his claim of non-paternity.
Justice Prashant Kumar emphasized that withholding maintenance payments due to unresolved paternity issues, a violation of the children’s fundamental rights. The Court also recognized the significance of DNA testing in settling paternity disputes, as it directly affects the determination of child maintenance.
However, it acknowledged the potential psychological and social consequences, including possible trauma and stigma, that may arise from ordering a DNA test.
Read Also: Allahabad High Court Reserves Judgment in High-Profile Gyanvapi Mosque Case
Ultimately, the Court emphasized that the psychological and social implications of unresolved paternity disputes cannot be disregarded, highlighting the importance of finding a resolution in the best interest of the children involved.
The Court emphasized in its May 30 ruling,
“A conclusive DNA paternity test can offer closure and stability for everyone involved, especially the children. This ensures that the children not only receive the necessary financial support but also secure their social and legal status.”
The court hearing a petition challenging a family court’s directive for the petitioner to undergo a DNA test. The man refused to pay child maintenance, alleging that the children not his.
The family court issued this order in November 2021, based on an application filed by the man’s wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The husband argued that the woman not his legally wedded wife, as she previously married another man who had been missing for several years. Additionally, he contended that a court cannot mandate a DNA test without his consent.
The wife, however, claimed that she married the petitioner in 2007 and that they have two children together. She informed the court that he covered all expenses for their birth.
Furthermore, she alleged that the father’s name in the children’s school records altered in collaboration with the school headmistress, leading to a criminal complaint being filed.
To resolve the case, the court examined the legal principles and precedents concerning DNA tests in paternity disputes.
The court specifically reviewed Section 53 of the CrPC, which pertains to the examination of an accused by a medical practitioner at the request of a police officer. It noted the explanation added to this provision in a 2005 amendment, clarifying that “examination” includes DNA profiling.
The court observed,
“This explanation was added by way of amendment in 2005, which makes it clear that the profile examination includes blood, semen, swabs in case of sexual offences, sputum and sweat, hair samples and fingernail clippings by the use of modern and scientific techniques including DNA profiling and such other tests, which a doctor thinks necessary in a particular case,”
Emphasizing the consequences of unresolved paternity disputes, the court stated that the best interests of the children should be the primary concern in such cases.
The court further explained that the right to maintenance is not just a legal provision but is fundamentally tied to human rights.
The court ruled,
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights acknowledges the right to an adequate standard of living, encompassing food, clothing, housing, and medical care. For children, maintenance is essential for their survival, growth, and development. Withholding maintenance due to unresolved paternity issues constitutes a violation of their basic human rights,”
In this case, the Court asserted that the man could not simultaneously deny paternity and refuse to undergo a DNA test.
The Court noted,
“If he questions the paternity, the only method to validate his claim is through DNA testing. Additionally, the applicant cannot compare a DNA test to other tests like the Narco test, which require prior consent. Explanation 53 of the Cr.P.C. clearly states that ‘examination’ includes DNA parentage,”
Consequently, the Court directed the man to either comply with his maintenance obligation or undergo the DNA test as mandated by the family court. Failure to do so could result in an adverse inference under the Indian Evidence Act, the Court emphasized.
The Court ruled,
“This Court hereby orders the applicant to either fulfil his obligation of providing maintenance or undergo a DNA test, thereby preventing any adverse inference drawn under Section 114, Illustration (h) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,”
Advocate Arvind Kumar represented the husband who petitioned.
Advocate Shashidhar Pandey represented the State.
Advocate Rajesh Rai represented the wife who responded to the petition.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
