The Delhi High Court upheld a Family Court order directing a DNA test, ruling that a child’s right to know biological parentage outweighs an adult’s concern over reputation. The Court observed that truth cannot be suppressed merely because it causes personal discomfort.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an adult’s apprehension regarding reputational loss cannot take precedence over a child’s right to know their biological parentage. The Court highlighted this position with the observations that “reputation cannot become a shield against truth” and that “children cannot become casualties of adult choices.”
Upholding an order of the Family Court, the High Court confirmed a directive for a DNA test in a long-running maintenance dispute. Three children, seeking to establish that Ravi Kumar was their biological father, approached the court in proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed a petition filed by Ravi Kumar, challenging a March 2024 order of the Rohini Family Court. The Family Court had allowed an application for DNA testing of the petitioner and the three children, who alleged that they were born out of Ravi Kumar’s relationship with Geeta Devi.
As per the record, Geeta Devi claimed that she married Ravi Kumar in 1991 and that three children were born from that relationship. She alleged that Ravi Kumar later abandoned the family and did not provide maintenance. Ravi Kumar, however, denied both the marriage and paternity. He asserted that he had been married to Kumkum Devi since 1986, and also argued that documents relied upon by the respondents were fabricated.
On behalf of Ravi Kumar, counsel Ms. Babita Seth argued that the Family Court ordered a DNA test mechanically, even though the matter was at the evidence stage. She contended that the respondents failed to show a strong prima facie case and that the proceedings were aimed at tarnishing the petitioner’s and his family’s reputation. She also relied on matrimonial proceedings in Bihar to claim that no marital relationship existed between Ravi Kumar and Geeta Devi.
On the other side, Amicus Curiae Ms. Neelakshi Bhadauria, assisted by advocates Mr. Sarthak Karol and Ms. Tanishka Pawar, submitted that Ravi Kumar had consistently denied the alleged marriage and paternity, despite documentary and oral material suggesting otherwise. They argued that scientific determination of paternity was necessary to effectively decide the maintenance claim.
The High Court noted that the respondents had placed multiple documents on record, including photographs allegedly showing the parties together, family photographs, voter records, ration card entries, school records, and testimony of a landlady who stated that the parties lived together and that the children were born during that period of cohabitation.
The Court clarified that it was not concluding the final evidentiary weight of these materials. Instead, it held that they provided sufficient prima facie basis to justify an inquiry into paternity.
Justice Sharma emphasized that the DNA test application had been moved by the children themselves to establish their biological identity. The Court further held that where children are consistently recognized in public records as the offspring of a particular person, their claim cannot be dismissed simply because the adults’ relationship is disputed.
The Court also noted that Section 125 CrPC grants maintenance rights even to illegitimate children, and therefore the issue of paternity has a direct bearing on the pending proceedings.
Referring to recent Supreme Court guidance on DNA testing, the High Court observed that DNA tests should not be ordered routinely, but can be directed where paternity is directly in issue and scientific evidence is necessary to find the truth.
Rejecting the petitioner’s claim that a DNA test would harm his reputation, the Court reasoned that if he had no connection with the respondents, the DNA test would substantiate his defence. The Court remarked:
“The law cannot permit history to be rewritten merely because a person’s present social circumstances make him uncomfortable about his past,”
Concluding that protecting the children’s rights and identity deserved greater priority than the embarrassment of the adults, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s direction and dismissed the petition. The ruling was delivered on Friday.
Case Title: Ravi Kumar v. Geeta Devi & Ors.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE