RANCHI: A 14-year legal battle over a DNA test in a matrimonial dispute ended on Monday after the Jharkhand High Court declined to order the test, observing that the child whose paternity was under challenge had attained adulthood during the prolonged litigation.
Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary dismissed a writ petition filed by Lakhan Kumar Mandal, who had challenged a 2011 order of a Giridih family court rejecting his request for a DNA test to determine whether the boy was his biological son.
The High Court noted that once the child became an adult, his mother could no longer consent to a DNA test on his behalf. Since the petitioner never impleaded the child after he attained majority, the court said it could neither compel him to undergo the test nor draw any adverse inference against the mother if the now-adult son refused.
"In the present case, if an order for DNA test of the child, who has attained majority during the pendency of this case, is passed now, his independent right to establish his paternity and his legitimacy may not arise at a later stage as and when he attains majority, as has been observed by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the aforesaid judgement, as the child in the present case has already attained majority.
Thus, on the one hand, the mother has lost the right to give consent for DNA test of the child, who has attained majority during the pendency of the case, and for this reason, the order of DNA test of the child at this stage is certainly not binding on the child as he is not a party in this proceeding," the order stated.
The court added that it is well settled that in a petition seeking a DNA test of a child, a court can order the test to establish the husband's allegation of infidelity and adultery only if a strong prima facie case is made out, even when the child is not a party to the proceedings.
"The law is equally well settled that there must be a strong prima-facie case and husband must establish non-access in order to dispel the presumption arising under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act," the order said.
According to the court, Mandal married Foolmati Devi on July 12, 2000, and claimed he was employed in Surat from January 2001 to April 2002. He alleged that upon returning home, he found his wife in an advanced stage of pregnancy and subsequently accused her of adultery.
He filed a divorce petition in 2008, nearly six years after the child's birth. During the proceedings, after the testimony of four witnesses had been recorded, Mandal moved the family court in 2010 seeking a DNA test to establish that the child was not his biological son.
The family court rejected the plea in December 2011, prompting him to move the Jharkhand High Court.
When Mandal sought the DNA test in 2010, the child was only eight years old and was legally represented by his mother. However, by the time the High Court delivered its verdict on Monday, he had turned 24, having attained majority during the pendency of the writ petition filed in 2012.
The court held that this significant lapse of time became a key factor in declining the request for a DNA test.
Dismissing the petition, the High Court upheld the family court's decision, bringing an end to litigation that had continued for more than 14 years and outlasted the child's minority.
