View of the Supreme Court in Karnataka
The courts should not order the DNA test, of course, to establish paternity, and such a test, if immediate, may be permitted strictly within the parameters of the Evidence Act, the Karnataka High Court stated, while the DNA test was set by the Civic Court in the application for an action for an action.
“Such tests without the immediate need for Impermil not only the sanctity of marriage, but also the legitimacy of the child and also becomes a violation of fundamental rights to privacy and dignity, according to Article 21 of the Constitution,” the court said.
Scan
Justice of Judge M. Nagaprasann, who deals with the Supreme Court’s judgments interpreting Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act (ie), which deals with birth during marriage.
Also, The High Court Said That Courts Cannot Order for DNA test in the absence of pleading in the suit with regard to “non-process of the parants of the Child to Each Other at the relevant point in time” During the Continuance of A Valid Marriage Between His Mother and Any man … Shall Be Conclusive Proof That He Is The Legitimate Son of That Man, Unless it Can Shown That The Parties to the Marriage had no access to each other whenever he could be spoiled. “
“The court that responds to the request (for the DNA test) must remember that the intertwined fine balance between the test and the right of privacy and dignity, as ordered in the constitution,” said Judge Nagaprasanna, stressed that the Civic Court ignored the fact that there was a few evidence to prove his mother.
Details of the case
Two sons, birth to the first wife, raised the question of paternity before the civic court eight years after they filed an action for the division of their father’s property by questioning their second marriage, except that their father could not have a child from his second wife because he allegedly underwent vasectomy before he was born a male child.
Read more
Published – 2 September 2025 17:55 is
