'Child Can’t Be Used as Pawn to Prove Adultery': Madras HC Rejects Ex-Husband’s Plea for DNA Test
Court found that the man had sought a DNA test of his daughter nearly a decade after the divorce, solely to humiliate his former wife and to avoid maintenance to child
The Madras High Court upheld order dismissing husband's belated DNA test request in child maintenance case
The Madras High Court at Madurai Bench recently dismissed a petition by a man seeking a DNA test to challenge the paternity of his daughter, observing that the plea was belated and intended to humiliate his former wife.
Court said that such tests cannot be ordered as a matter of routine, especially when no prima facie case is made out.
"The DNA Testing cannot be used as a short cut method to establish infidelity...The child cannot be used as a pawn to show that the mother of the child was living in adultery," court said.
The bench Justice Shamim Ahmed upheld the court below's order rejecting the man’s request for a paternity test, stating that it violated the child’s right to identity and the mother’s right to privacy.
The petitioner got married in March 2007, and a daughter was born to the couple in December 2009. Following marital discord, the couple obtained a mutual divorce in March 2012. Nearly a decade later, the wife filed a maintenance petition in 2021 before the Palani Judicial Magistrate. During those proceedings, the husband filed an application seeking a DNA test to prove that the child was not his biological daughter.
The trial court dismissed his plea in June 2025, noting that no such direction was warranted. The husband then approached the High Court under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the decision.
Rejecting the revision, court observed that the husband had failed to explain why he had waited more than 12 years since the divorce to raise the issue of paternity. “No satisfactory explanation has been given by the revision petitioner for such an inordinate delay,” the court said, adding that he appeared to have approached the court “only with a view to humiliate his wife and to protract the maintenance case".
Court emphasized that under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, a child born during a valid marriage is conclusively presumed to be legitimate unless it is shown that the husband and wife had no access to each other at the relevant time. “The revision petitioner has failed to establish non-access. No material has been placed before this court to disprove access between them in the relevant period,” the order stated.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, Justice Ahmed reiterated that DNA tests should not be ordered as a matter of course, as they could have “far-reaching effects on the dignity and privacy of individuals".
Court also cited Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), which recognized that compelling an individual to undergo such tests would violate the right against self-incrimination and the right to privacy under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.
Court further referred to Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023), in which the Supreme Court held that DNA testing cannot be used as a shortcut to establish infidelity or adultery years after separation, particularly when the husband has not proved non-access.
In conclusion, court said that ordering a DNA test would infringe upon the rights of the wife and the child. Finding no merit in the plea, court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Palani magistrate’s order refusing the DNA test.
Case Title: X vs. Y
Order Date: September 25, 2025
Bench: Justice Shamim Ahmed