The Karnataka High Court allowed an application for DNA profiling by an applicant who claimed a share in the property of his biological father holding that the said procedure was “scientifically approved to find out the root through DNA.

The trial court had directed the parties to appear before a forensic laboratory to draw the samples to conduct a DNA profiling test.

The status of the plaintiff, who claimed his right over the suit property as a member of the family, was denied by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that a person cannot be compelled to give blood samples for the purpose of DNA profiling. The petitioner further contended that the plaintiff had not produced a birth certificate to prove his relationship with the petitioner.

The Court noted that the plaintiff had voluntarily filed an application seeking DNA profiling to know about his biological roots and to claim share over the property of his biological parents.

A Single Bench of Justice M G Uma observed, “I do not find any reason to reject the claim of the applicant, as DNA profiling is the procedure scientifically approved to find out the root through DNA. It cannot be said that the defendants will be prejudiced in any manner, if such a test is conducted. If an adverse report is received after such DNA profiling, the Court will take a call on it as the same will have an effect on the fate of the suit filed by the plaintiff.

Advocate S.V. Prakash represented the petitioner, while ​​Advocate Dilraj Jude appeared for the respondents.

The Court held that if the request for DNA profiling was not accepted, then the right of the plaintiff to claim a share in the suit property would be denied. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner or any other defendants, if DNA profiling was conducted.

The Court remarked, “The plaintiff himself has taken the risk of seeking DNA profiling to prove his contention that he is the son of late L.P.Ghouse Baig through late Umerabi. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the right of either the plaintiff or the defendants is violated in any manner.

The Court stated that both the persons whom the plaintiff was claiming to be his parents were not alive. The person who according to the petitioner was the father of the plaintiff was already examined before the Court as a witness who supported the claim of the plaintiff.

The Court directed the trial court to clarify the persons who were required to give blood samples and the procedure to be followed.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Mohammed Refeeq v. S. Mohammed Fairoz Ahamed & Ors. (2024:KHC:1341)


Petitioner: Advocate S.V. Prakash

Respondents: Advocates Dilraj Jude and Rohit Sequeira

Click here to read/download the Order