‘If no positive answer is found’: Supreme Court orders DNA test for closure in paternity case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that courts may order a DNA test in paternity disputes if the result is directly in issue, no other evidence can sufficiently resolve the question, and it serves the interests of justice and the parties involved.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh upheld the concurrent orders of a trial court in Basna and the Chhattisgarh High Court directing a DNA test to determine the paternity of a man claiming to be the son of Chaturbhuj Pradhan.

The apex court applied the tests of “balance of interests” and “eminent need” laid down in earlier judgments. 

It held that paternity was directly in question in the civil suit seeking declaration of sonship and a one-third share in the appellant’s property. 

No other evidence on record could provide a conclusive answer, and earlier maintenance proceedings did not operate as res judicata, the bench said.

Dismissing the appeal filed by Chaturbhuj Pradhan, the court directed the civil court to conduct the DNA test and proceed with the suit accordingly.

According to the case details, respondent Amar claims to be the son of Pradhan. He was born on September 10, 1999, allegedly from a consensual relationship his mother had with the appellant in January 1999. 

Pradhan has consistently denied paternity. He was earlier acquitted in a rape case filed by Amar’s mother under Section 376 of the IPC.

Multiple maintenance proceedings were filed between 2003 and 2010. Amar later filed a civil suit for declaration of paternity and share in property. 

Both the trial court and the High Court ordered the DNA test, noting that no other evidence would sufficiently establish paternity.

Pradhan argued before the top court that he could not be compelled to undergo a DNA test, there was no eminent need for it, and the suit was barred by res judicata. 

He also contended that no adverse inference should be drawn against him at this stage.

Amar’s counsel countered that continuous denial of paternity left no other recourse and that the balance of interests favoured the respondent. The right to privacy, though available to the appellant, was not absolute, it was argued. 

The earlier proceedings under Section 125 CrPC were summary in nature and did not amount to a final adjudication.

On hearing the counsel, the court observed that the appellant had consistently denied paternity and there was no material suggesting that Amar’s mother had any other intimate relationship. 

The bench also clarified that the issue of res judicata did not arise.

In the judgment rendered on May 29, 2026, the court emphasised the human aspect of the dispute.

“As far as the right of privacy is concerned, we are balancing, in this case, the appellant’s privacy with the respondent’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 the appellant is the father but the authorities consistently found otherwise. If no positive answer is ever found… it is quite possible that Amar would forever be denied the rights he may otherwise be entitled to,” the bench said.

The court concluded that the balance of interests clearly lay in favour of respondent Amar and found no error in the orders passed by the lower courts.

It directed the civil court to fix a date for the DNA test and proceed with the suit based on the results.