Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Muni Anjanappa @ Thammaiah, married the first respondent, Smt. Roopa @ Gangalakshmi, on 24.05.2010. The petitioner claimed that the wife refused to cohabit from the date of marriage and that they never lived together. A girl child was born on 14.09.2011. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking annulment of marriage on grounds of cruelty and adultery. During the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking a DNA test of the child to prove that he was not the biological father. The Family Court allowed the application and a DNA test was conducted, which established that the petitioner was the biological father. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application (I.A.No.XVII) seeking a second DNA test, which was rejected by the Family Court on 01.10.2022. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court heard the petitioner's counsel and dismissed the petition, holding that once paternity is established by a prior DNA test, there is no justification for a second test. The court observed that allowing repeated testing would lead to endless litigation and defeat the purpose of finality in evidence. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Paternity - DNA Test - Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - The petitioner-husband sought annulment of marriage on grounds of adultery and filed an application for a second DNA test of the child, which was rejected by the Family Court. The High Court upheld the rejection, holding that once paternity is established by a prior DNA test, repeated testing is not permissible and would lead to endless litigation. (Paras 1-4) B) Evidence Law - Expert Evidence - DNA Test - Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court held that an application for DNA testing under Section 45 cannot be used to re-litigate a fact already determined by a previous test, as it would defeat the purpose of finality in evidence. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court was justified in rejecting the application for a second DNA test to determine paternity of a child born during wedlock, when a prior DNA test had already established paternity.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Family Court's order rejecting the application for a second DNA test.
Law Points
- DNA test
- paternity
- Evidence Act
- Section 45
- Hindu Marriage Act
- Section 13(1)(i-a)
- repeated testing
- finality of evidence
