High Court sets aside paternity DNA test order
BENGALURU: Emphasizing the sanctity of individual privacy and bodily autonomy, the Karnataka High Court has set aside a lower court order that mandated a DNA test in a contested paternity and maintenance dispute arising from a live-in relationship.
The ruling was delivered by a single-judge bench presided over by Justice Lalitha Kanneganti while hearing a petition challenging a Family Court direction issued on March 18, 2026. The higher court clarified that while a child’s right to maintenance must be protected, routine scientific testing cannot be ordered lightly or used as an exploratory “fishing expedition” without first exhausting or evaluating existing evidentiary material.
The underlying legal battle began when a woman, acting as the natural guardian of her child, filed a petition in the Family Court seeking financial maintenance from the respondent man. During the proceedings, an interim application was moved requesting a court-ordered DNA blood sample collection to establish biological paternity. The Principal Judge of the Family Court initially granted the request, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Representing the petitioner, counsel argued that directing a DNA test in the absence of solid, corroborative prima facie evidence violates legal protections. They maintained that mere personal acquaintance, casual contact, or unverified associations cannot substitute for concrete legal proof of paternity, warning against courts permitting speculative searches for evidence.
Conversely, counsel representing the respondent child defended the Family Court’s order. They contended that the petitioner’s prior admissions regarding a relationship, his association with the child, historical financial support, and handwritten assurances constituted strong prima facie grounds. Furthermore, they argued that a child’s right to know their biological father forms an integral part of personal dignity and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, making scientific DNA evidence essential.
The ruling
The High Court accepted the petitioner’s stance, holding that a DNA test directly infringes upon an individual’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, judicial bodies must exercise extreme caution.
