DNA Test Denied in Partition Dispute

Source: Orissa High Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justice B.P. Routray in the case of Golapi Majhi v. Bhabanishankar Budulal @ Kisan and Others (2025) dismissed a petition challenging the trial court's order that refused DNA testing in a partition suit, upholding the principle that DNA tests cannot be ordered routinely and must balance privacy rights with the need for truth. 

What was the Background of Golapi Majhi v. Bhabanishankar Budulal @ Kisan and Others (2025) Case? 

• The case arose from a partition suit (C.S. No. 3 of 2018) filed in the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Court, Kuchinda. 
• Opposite Party No. 1 (Bhabanishankar Budulal) filed a suit seeking partition of joint family property. 
• Petitioner (Golapi Majhi) was defendant no. 1 in the partition suit and disputed the parentage of defendant no. 3. 
• The petitioner filed a written statement with counter claim alleging that defendant no. 3 had no share in the suit property as he was not the son of Thutha Budula@Kisan. 
• On March 23, 2024, the petitioner filed an application seeking DNA test to determine the parentage of defendant no. 3. 
• The trial court rejected the prayer for DNA test on December 2, 2024. 
• The petitioner challenged this order through CMP No. 758 of 2025 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 
• P.W.2 (wife of deceased Thutha Budula) had testified and admitted defendant no. 3 as her son through Thutha Budula. 
• Defendant no. 3 was 58 years old at the time of the proceedings. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Key Observations: 

• The Court emphasized that DNA tests cannot be ordered routinely and must balance privacy rights with the need for truth, requiring a "strong prima facie case" and "eminent need." 
• The Court noted that maternal testimony holds significant evidentiary value, stating that directing DNA test despite the mother's admission would be "an insult to her motherhood." 
• The Court observed that in partition suits, social recognition as a family member matters more than blood relation, and that Section 112 of the Evidence Act creates irrebuttable presumption of legitimacy. 
• Given defendant no. 3's age of 58 years, the Court agreed that DNA testing would not bring fruitful results at this stage. 

Legal Principles Established: 

DNA Test Guidelines: 

• DNA tests should not be directed routinely or as a matter of course. 
• Courts must balance privacy rights against the duty to reach truth. 
• Strong prima facie case required before ordering DNA tests. 
• "Eminent need" test must be satisfied. 

Evidentiary Hierarchy: 

• Maternal testimony holds significant weight in paternity determination. 
• Section 112 Evidence Act creates irrebuttable presumption of legitimacy. 
• Social recognition as family member relevant in partition disputes. 

Privacy Protection: 

• Right to privacy includes freedom from forcible medical examination. 
• Courts must exercise discretion after balancing interests of all parties.

What is DNA Testing?

About:  

• DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) testing is a scientific method that analyzes genetic material to determine biological relationships, particularly paternity and maternity. 
• DNA testing involves comparing genetic markers between individuals to establish biological connections with over 99% accuracy in paternity cases.
• The test can be conducted using various samples including blood, saliva, hair follicles, or cheek swabs. 

Types of DNA Tests: 

• Paternity Testing: Determines biological father of a child 
• Maternity Testing: Establishes biological mother (rare cases) 
• Kinship Testing: Determines relationships between relatives 
• Identity Testing: Used in criminal investigations and mass disasters 

What are the Legal Provisions Governing DNA Testing in India? 

Constitutional Framework: 

• Article 21: Right to privacy includes protection from forced medical examination. 
• Article 14: Ensures equal treatment while balancing rights of all parties. 

Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 

• Section 112: Creates irrebuttable presumption of legitimacy for children born during wedlock. 
• Section 45: Allows expert opinion on DNA test results as scientific evidence. 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: 

• Section 53: Allows medical examination of accused with consent. 
• Section 53A: Permits collection of DNA samples in sexual offence cases. 

DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Act, 2019: 

• Establishes DNA Regulatory Board for oversight. 
• Mandates accreditation of DNA testing laboratories. 
• Provides framework for quality control and standards. 
• Includes provisions for data protection and privacy. 

Key Judicial Guidelines:  

• Courts follow the "eminent need" test established in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary (2010), requiring strong prima facie case before ordering DNA tests and careful consideration of privacy rights versus truth-finding needs.