Karnataka High Court
Credit: iStock Photo
Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has refused to interfere with an order passed by the Vijayapura district and sessions court, directing the DNA test of a school teacher.
The teacher had questioned the marital status of the woman and paternity of the child before the district court.
The dispute originated with the woman, claiming to be the teacher’s wife, filing a plea before the trial court in Vijayapura seeking maintenance for the food, clothes and shelter for herself and the child. In 2020, the trial court granted maintenance of Rs 5,000 each to the wife and the daughter under CrPC Section 125.
Challenging this order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the district court contending that the woman is not at all his wife and the child not his daughter. He claimed to have found certain documents — a marriage card with another woman’s photographs of the marriage — to establish this fact.
On July 10, 2025, the woman filed an interim application seeking a DNA test of the husband. The court allowed this application and directed the district health officer, Vijayapura, to draw his blood sample and send it to Forensic Sciences Laboratory (FSL), Bengaluru.
Challenging this order before the high court, the teacher contended that such a direction could not have been issued in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Justice Magadum noted that though the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance in 2020, the petitioner has not paid a single rupee despite the lapse of nearly five years.
Insofar as the direction for the DNA test was concerned, the court said that the order operates in favour of him and essential to resolve contested facts.
“It is now well-settled that in proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, where the husband himself disputes either the marital relationship or the paternity of the child, the court is empowered to direct a DNA test to ascertain the truth of such assertions. The Supreme Court (in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik vs Lata Nandlal Badwaik case) has categorically held that when scientific evidence such as DNA profiling is available, the court cannot be compelled to shut its eyes to the truth, particularly when paternity is seriously contested,” Justice Magadum said.
The court further said, “This court is constrained to observe that the present petition is nothing but an attempt to further delay and frustrate the maintenance proceedings, which are summary in nature and intended to provide immediate relief to a destitute wife and child. The conduct of the petitioner and that of the father of respondent No.2 prima facie reflects a grossly unfair approach, compelling the wife and daughter to run from pillar to post for years together merely to secure subsistence.”