Cannot Claim DNA Test Invades Privacy After Consenting For It: Karnataka High Court Upholds DNA Test Order In Partition Suit
The Court held that the evidence on record was insufficient to ascertain biological relationship, DNA test sought by plaintiffs themselves precluded any privacy or stigma concern.
Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a trial court's order directing a DNA test in a partition suit to determine the paternity of the plaintiffs, holding that the defendant, having himself expressed willingness during cross-examination to undergo the test, could not subsequently contend that such a direction amounted to an invasion of his privacy.
The Court further held that the evidence on record was insufficient to conclusively determine the biological relationship between the parties and that the DNA test was necessary for effective adjudication of the plaintiffs' claim to a share in the suit properties. It also noted that the test had been sought by the plaintiffs themselves to establish their own paternity, and therefore no question of stigma to their legitimacy arose.
A Bench of Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil observed, “…It is further to be noticed that the DNA test is sought by the respondents/plaintiffs themselves, hence, the question of invasion of privacy or causing stigma towards their legitimacy does not arise. Furthermore, the defendant No.1, in his cross-examination has clearly deposed that he is willing to take the DNA test, hence, after giving such consent in the evidence, he cannot now contend that the same amounts to invasion of his privacy”.
“…it is clear that the evidence adduced is insufficient to ascertain the biological relationship between the petitioner/defendant No.1 and the respondents/plaintiffs”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Anil Kumar S. appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Syed Akbar Pasha appeared for the respondent.
The plaintiffs, a sister and brother, filed a suit for partition and separate possession claiming to be the children of the defendant and his wife, Mahadevamma. The defendant denied this in his written statement, asserting that the plaintiffs were born to Mahadevamma through her earlier marriage with one H.C. Shivanna.
After the conclusion of evidence, at the arguments stage, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct a DNA analysis.
The defendant opposed the application, contending that it was belated, that there was no prima facie proof of relationship warranting such a test, that documentary records showed the plaintiffs' father's name as "H.C. Shivanna" rather than his own name "Shivanna", and that compelling him to undergo the test would violate his right to privacy. The Trial Court allowed the application, and the defendant challenged this order before the High Court.
Examining the evidence, the Court noted that witness depositions were inconsistent, while some stated that the defendant and the plaintiffs' mother were married and that the plaintiffs were born to them, another witness's cross-examination suggested the plaintiffs' father was a different person of the same first name from a different village.
Documents produced by the plaintiffs, including academic and identity records, listed their father's name as H.C. Shivanna while the defendant went by Shivanna, raising a genuine dispute on paternity that was foundational to the partition claim.
Referring to Supreme Court's judgment in Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B. (1993) 3 SCC 418, Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2024) 7 SCC 773, and Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph 2025 SCC Online SC 175, as well as the Court's own precedents, the Bench distilled the governing principles: that a DNA test must be directly in issue for adjudicating the dispute, that it is an exceptional exercise sensitive to the welfare of the parties, that a distinction exists between paternity and legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, and that such a test may be ordered only where existing evidence is found insufficient and would not cause undue harm to the parties.
However, relying on Narayan Dutt Tiwari v. Rohit Shekhar and Another (2012) 12 SCC 554, the Court modified the order to direct that the DNA test result be placed before the Trial Court in a sealed cover to maintain confidentiality.
The Court accordingly disposed of the writ petition, upholding the Trial Court's order as modified, with a direction that the Court Commissioner's DNA test result be produced before the Trial Court in a sealed cover.
Cause Title: Shivanna v. H.S. Manjula & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 026:KHC:34595)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Anil Kumar S., Advocate.
Respondent: Syed Akbar Pasha, Mahantesh S. Hosmath, Advocates.