Patna High Court Refuses Husband’s Plea for DNA Test to Prove Adultery: 2023 Judgment Explained

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a significant ruling dated 9 January 2023, the Patna High Court refused to allow a husband’s request for a DNA test of his wife’s minor daughter to prove allegations of adultery. The case was decided by Hon’ble Justice Anil Kumar Sinha in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 568 of 2018 (arising out of Matrimonial Case No. 833 of 2010).

The petitioner (husband) sought a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claiming that his wife had been unfaithful and that the child, Khushi Kumari, was born from an illicit relationship. He alleged that he was medically impotent and therefore could not be the biological father.

The Family Court, Patna, had earlier rejected his application for a DNA test. Challenging that order, he moved the High Court seeking to direct the wife and child to undergo DNA examination. The High Court, however, dismissed his plea, ruling that there was no strong prima facie case to justify compelling the wife and child to undergo such a test.

Background of the Case

The petitioner and respondent married in June 1987 under Hindu rites. The husband served in the Indian Army and retired in January 2005. After retirement, he claimed he found his wife living separately at her maternal home and unwilling to return.

In December 2005, the wife gave birth to a daughter, which led the husband to allege that she had conceived the child while living away from him. He maintained that he had no physical access to her during the period of conception and that medical tests showed he was incapable of fathering a child.

In response, the wife denied these allegations and maintained that the daughter was born out of their marriage. She also accused the husband of marrying another woman, Vibha Devi, while their marriage was still subsisting, and filed a criminal case under Sections 498A, 323, 307, and 379 IPC.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The husband’s counsel, Mr. Sriram Krishna, argued that:

• The petitioner had been diagnosed with early varicocele and zero sperm count since 2006, indicating infertility.
• His wife had given birth to a child in December 2005 when he had no marital relations with her.
• The DNA test was necessary to confirm paternity and prove adultery.
• He cited the Supreme Court ruling in Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy [(2015) 1 SCC 365], where the Court allowed a DNA test in a similar matrimonial dispute.
• The wife’s refusal to undergo the DNA test should be taken as adverse inference, implying guilt.

Respondent’s Arguments and Amicus Curiae’s Assistance

The respondent (wife) was represented by Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh, while Ms. Surya Nilambari appeared as Amicus Curiae (court-appointed counsel).

They argued that:

• The husband’s medical reports were not reliable or contemporaneous — all dated after the child’s birth (2006, 2012, and 2016).
• None of the reports conclusively proved infertility, as the 2006 ultrasonography report lacked sperm count details.
• The husband himself had remarried another woman (Vibha Devi), which undermined his moral standing.
• The Supreme Court has clearly held that DNA or blood tests cannot be ordered as a matter of course, especially when it would stigmatize a child and the mother.

They cited multiple landmark cases:

1. Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, (1993) 3 SCC 418
2. Sharda v. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 SCC 493
3. Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa Women Commission, (2010) 8 SCC 633
4. Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, (2015) 1 SCC 365

Court’s Observations

Justice Anil Kumar Sinha carefully analyzed the evidence and legal precedents. The Court observed:

• The husband’s first medical report (2006) was obtained after the child’s birth, and even that report did not prove infertility — it merely showed “early varicocele,” which does not conclusively cause impotency.
• Later reports (2012 and 2016) were irrelevant for establishing infertility at the time of conception.
• The petitioner’s own father’s testimony contradicted his claim, admitting that the wife used to visit her matrimonial home until 2005 — meaning the husband had access during the period of conception.
• The husband had even expressed willingness to resume matrimonial life with his wife after 2006, which was inconsistent with his allegation of adultery.

The Court highlighted that ordering a DNA test is a serious judicial step and cannot be used as a tool to “fish for evidence” or humiliate a woman. It reiterated that compelling someone to undergo such a test without solid proof would violate the right to privacy and dignity.

Legal Principles Considered

1. Presumption of Legitimacy (Section 112, Indian Evidence Act)
   • A child born during a valid marriage is presumed legitimate unless proven otherwise by clear evidence of non-access between the spouses.
2. Supreme Court Guidelines in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal
   • Courts cannot order blood or DNA tests casually.
   • The husband must first prove non-access.
   • The test cannot be allowed to stigmatize a child as illegitimate or a mother as unchaste.
   • No one can be compelled to give a blood sample.
3. Principle of Privacy and Dignity
   • The Court must balance the right to truth with the right to privacy, especially of women and children.

Court’s Decision

• The Court held that the husband failed to establish a prima facie case of adultery or infertility.
• The request for DNA testing appeared to be a fishing inquiry, not supported by credible evidence.
• The High Court upheld the Family Court’s order rejecting the DNA test and dismissed the petition.
• The Court also appreciated the assistance of Amicus Curiae Ms. Surya Nilambari, awarding her an honorarium of ₹11,000 from the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This decision is crucial for matrimonial and family law proceedings because it:

• Reaffirms that DNA tests cannot be ordered casually to settle marital disputes.
• Protects the privacy and dignity of women and children, preventing misuse of science as a weapon in emotional conflicts.
• Emphasizes that prima facie evidence of non-access or infidelity is mandatory before compelling such tests.
• Reflects the judiciary’s sensitivity toward the psychological and social consequences of labeling a child illegitimate.

The judgment reinforces the principle that truth must be sought within legal and ethical boundaries — the right to know cannot override the right to dignity.

Legal Issues Decided and the Court’s Reasoning

• Whether the husband established a prima facie case for DNA testing? ❌ No.
  The Court held that medical evidence and conduct did not support his claim.
• Whether DNA testing can be ordered to collect evidence in divorce proceedings? ❌ No.
  It cannot be allowed as a “roving inquiry” to gather proof of adultery.
• Whether privacy and legitimacy of the child should override the husband’s suspicion? ✔️ Yes.
  The Court prioritized the child’s legitimacy and the mother’s dignity.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, (1993) 3 SCC 418
• Sharda v. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 SCC 493
• Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa Women Commission, (2010) 8 SCC 633
• Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, (2015) 1 SCC 365

Case Title

Bipin Kumar Singh v. Pushpa Devi

Case Number

Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 568 of 2018
(In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 302 of 2017; arising from Matrimonial Case No. 833 of 2010)

Citation(s)

2023 (1) PLJR 698

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For

• For the Petitioner (Husband): Mr. Sriram Krishna, Mr. Amarjeet, Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma
• For the Respondent (Wife): Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh
• Amicus Curiae: Ms. Surya Nilambari

Link to Judgment

NDQjNTY4IzIwMTgjMSNO-eQWxGb0y9EM=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.