Karnataka High Court: Husband Loses Due to Lack of Evidence

A Maintenance Claim, Domestic Violence case has been dismissed by the Karnataka High Court, where a man’s plea seeking a DNA test of the child born to his wife was rejected, as the court found that the petitioner did not dispute the marital status and cohabitation with the wife. The court’s decision was based on the principle that a DNA test on paternity of a child cannot be ordered as a matter of course, and the petitioner’s application was rejected due to lack of merit.

Case Details

• Court Name: Karnataka High Court
• Bench/Judges: Justice Rajesh Rai K
• Case Title: X v/s Y CRIMINAL PETITION NO. OF 2025
• Date of Judgment: Not available

Legal Reasoning & Statutory Context

The Karnataka High Court’s decision was based on the principles of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, specifically Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which deals with the presumption of paternity. The court also considered the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, specifically Section , which deals with the maintenance of wives, children, and parents. The court noted that in proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., if the husband disputes 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. However, in this case, the petitioner did not dispute the marital status, and the court found that the paternity of the child could not be questioned.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B (1993), which held that courts in India cannot order blood tests as a matter of course. The Apex Court had further stated that "the court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence of ordering the blood test; whether it will have the effect of branding a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman". The Karnataka High Court upheld the family court’s order, which had rejected the petitioner’s application for a DNA test, citing the lack of continuous cohabitation between the petitioner and his wife.

The court’s decision was also based on the provisions of the Family Courts Act, specifically Section 12, which deals with the powers of the family court to make orders for the maintenance of wives, children, and parents. The court noted that the family court had opined that, since the petitioner and the respondent wife had stayed for a period of one week and were in cohabitation, the paternity of the child could not be doubted.

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is a recent legislation that deals with the admissibility of electronic evidence in court proceedings. Section of the Evidence Act, which is part of this legislation, deals with the presumption of paternity and states that a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage between the parties shall be presumed to be the legitimate child of the parties, unless the contrary is proved. The court’s decision was based on this presumption, and the petitioner’s failure to dispute the marital status and cohabitation with the wife.

Impact on Litigants & Practical Takeaways

The Karnataka High Court’s decision has significant implications for litigants in maintenance and paternity cases. The decision emphasizes the importance of considering the presumption of paternity under Section 112 of the Evidence Act and the need for the court to carefully examine the consequences of ordering a DNA test. The decision also highlights the importance of continuous cohabitation between the parties in determining the paternity of a child.

In practical terms, the decision means that husbands who dispute the paternity of a child in maintenance proceedings must provide strong evidence to support their claim. The court will not order a DNA test as a matter of course, and the husband must demonstrate that the test is necessary to ascertain the truth of his assertions. The decision also emphasizes the importance of considering the potential consequences of ordering a DNA test, including the potential harm to the child and the mother.

To comply with the court’s decision, litigants should ensure that they provide strong evidence to support their claims, including evidence of continuous cohabitation or lack thereof. They should also be aware of the potential consequences of ordering a DNA test and ensure that they have considered all the relevant factors before making such a request. Additionally, litigants should be aware of the provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and the Family Courts Act, and ensure that they comply with the relevant sections and provisions.

Reference: Click here to view the official source

Legal Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only based on public news sources. It does not constitute legal advice. For specific counsel, please contact Mookherjee Associates.