The Kalaburagi bench of the Karnataka High Court has firmly refused to set aside an order for a DNA test in a contentious paternity case. The court stated that the scientific test is essential to resolve the claims of a schoolteacher who denies being married to a woman and fathering her child.
Court Dismisses Teacher's Petition
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed the petition filed by Chidanand, a schoolteacher from Devara Hipparagi in Vijayapura district's Sindagi taluk. The judge ruled that when core facts like marriage and paternity are under dispute, the revisional court is fully empowered to take necessary steps for a proper resolution.
Justice Magadum emphasised that the DNA test order seeks to conclusively settle the very disputes raised by Chidanand himself. He found that the petitioner had failed to show any prejudice caused by the directive for the test.
Background of the Legal Battle
The legal tussle began when a local court, hearing a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), ordered Chidanand to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 5,000 to each of the two claimants—the woman and the girl. Challenging this order, he approached the district and sessions court in Vijayapura.
During these proceedings, the woman filed an interim application seeking a DNA test after Chidanand contested the marital relationship and his paternity. On July 10, 2025, the 4th district and sessions court in Vijayapura allowed this application, directing him to undergo the test.
No Maintenance Paid for Five Years
A significant factor in the High Court's decision was the revelation that Chidanand had not complied with the earlier maintenance order. Justice Magadum pointed out that despite the local court's order in 2020, "not a single rupee" had been paid by the petitioner over the last five years.
The court characterized his latest petition as an attempt to further delay and frustrate the maintenance proceedings. The judge also rejected Chidanand's argument that the sessions court lacked jurisdiction to order a DNA test in revisional proceedings, stating the order was beneficial and necessary to resolve contested facts.
Supreme Court Precedents Cited
Justice Magadum anchored his judgment on landmark rulings from the Supreme Court of India. He referenced the case of Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik vs Lata Nandlal Badwaik, where the apex court stated that when scientific evidence like DNA profiling is available, courts cannot ignore the truth.
He also cited Dipanwita Roy vs. Ronobroto Roy, in which the Supreme Court recognized DNA testing as "the most legitimate and scientifically accurate method to establish paternity." The judge noted that various high courts have consistently upheld that DNA tests are permissible when crucial for deciding maintenance claims under Section 125 of the CrPC.
By upholding the Vijayapura court's order, the Karnataka High Court has reinforced the use of definitive scientific evidence to cut through prolonged legal disputes over relationship and parentage, ensuring a path toward justice.
