The Karnataka High Court has held that courts cannot order DNA or paternity tests merely by invoking the welfare of the child, without examining whether such testing is necessary and proportionate in the facts of the case.

Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed that the trial court had failed to explain why scientific evidence was required, as mandated by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

"The trial Court has not addressed the petitioner's constitutional objection through this balancing exercise. Merely observing that the welfare of the child is paramount does not answer whether the proposed examination is necessary and proportionate," the Court observed.

The High Court accordingly set aside a Family Court order directing a man to undergo a DNA test to determine whether he was the biological father of a child in a maintenance proceedings.

The case arose from a maintenance petition filed by a minor child through his mother. During the proceedings, the mother moved an interim application seeking a DNA test after the man denied being the child's biological father.

The Family Court allowed the application and directed both the man and the minor child to provide blood samples for DNA examination.

Challenging the order before the High Court, the man submitted that an earlier civil court had already rejected the mother's application seeking a DNA test. He argued that the Family Court's decision to direct the same examination amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

On the other hand, counsel appearing for the minor child and his mother argued that the child had a right to know his biological parentage, which formed an integral part of the right to dignity, identity and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. They further contended that the earlier rejection of the application did not prevent the mother from seeking a DNA test in separate proceedings.

After noting the man's admission that he had physical relations with the mother, the High Court observed that a DNA examination could not be directed mechanically when sufficient evidence was already available.

Highlighting the need to balance the child's welfare with the man's right to privacy and bodily autonomy, the Court clarified that refusing a DNA examination does not necessarily amount to a finding that the alleged biological relationship does not exist.

"The court may decline such an examination because the evidence already available is sufficient, because the request is premature, or because the circumstances do not justify interfering with the privacy of the person concerned. Rejection of such an application does not invariably amount to a finding that the alleged biological relationship does not exist," the Court said.

The Court also emphasised that a father's obligation to maintain his child is not dependent on whether he was married to the child's mother.

"The obligation of a father toward his child does not depend on whether he was married to the mother. A child cannot be denied financial support merely because the relationship between the parties did not have the sanction of marriage," it observed.

Holding that the Family Court had not adequately examined the necessity and proportionality of the proposed DNA test, the High Court set aside its order and directed it to reconsider the application afresh in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Advocates Ravinson M and Denny Muthiah appeared for the father, while Advocates Mithun U, Shubhasri MV and Usha Reddy KP represented the minor child and his mother.