Question Of Paternity Is Directly In Issue; No Other Evidence Could Provide Categorical Answer: Supreme Court Upholds DNA Test Order In A Suit For Declaration

The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the appellant challenging the order whereby he was asked to undergo a DNA test to determine the paternity of the first respondent.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held, “Although there have been findings that state that the second respondent has been unable to establish any link between CP and , those findings were not as a consequence of the full-dress trial. The civil suit filed by Amar is for this very purpose and as such, the question of paternity is directly in issue. On this count as well, we find in favour of the respondent.”

Advocate Sameer Shrivastava represented the Appellant, while AOR Abhinav Shrivastava represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The first respondent claimed to be the son of CP, born on September 10, 1999, as a result of consensual relations between his mother and CP. The latter, while denying this, relied on his acquittal in a case registered by the mother under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Beginning in 2003 and continuing until sometime in 2010, there were several instances of litigation between the parties concerning maintenance. In one of the appeals before the High Court against the grant of maintenance, an observation was made that the son and the mother had failed to establish any relationship of CP, with them. This order was challenged before the Apex Court and came to be disposed of in Lok Adalat with the observation that at the time of filing, the son was a minor and as on the date of hearing before the Lok Adalat, he was 24 years old and as such nothing survived.

During the pendency of the appeal before the Apex Court, having attained majority, the son filed a suit seeking declaration that he is the son of CP and that, accordingly, he is entitled to1/3rd share in his property. The Civil Court passed the necessary orders. CP’s appeal before the High Court was also dismissed, observing that no other kind of evidence would be sufficient to clearly establish the paternity of the son.

Reasoning

Referring to its various precedents, the Apex Court explained that when the Court is confronted with the question whether or not to order a DNA test, the only test to be satisfied is whether the result of the DNA test is directly in issue and whether any other evidence-on-record can substitute for the answer that may be arrived at through this scientific process. “Also, whether it is in the best interest of the parties and/or justice”, it added.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the relationship between CP and the second respondent was in January, and the first respondent, claiming to be the son, was born in September 1999. The Bench noticed that CP had consistently denied paternity, and there was no other evidence that could provide a categorical answer. “It is nobody’s case that the second respondent had ever had an intimate relationship with someone else”, it stated.

Taking note of the civil suit filed by the respondent, the Bench held that the question of paternity was directly in issue. The Bench also held, “In view of the above observation, the question of res judicata also is closed. As far as the right of privacy is concerned, we are balancing, in this case CP’s privacy with A’s desire for closure on a question that has loomed large on his life throughout. He has seen, right from childhood, his mother assert that CP is the father but the authorities, consistently found otherwise. If no positive answer is ever found out to the question, it is quite possible that Amar would forever be denied the rights he may otherwise be entitled to by virtue of being CP’s son.”

Clarifying that the balance of interests was in favor of the first respondent, the Bench dismissed the appeal and ordered the concerned Civil Court to fix a date to conduct a DNA test and proceed further in the civil suit pending before it as per the result received subsequently.

Cause Title: CP v. AP (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 600)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Niteen Kumar Sinha, Advocates Prasanna Mohan, Chirag Joshi, Prashant Gautam, Prajanya Sharma, Ram Avtar Sharma

Respondent: AOR Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocates Unnati Vaibhav, Barkha Agrawal, Dibya Rai

Click here to read/download Judgment