Rajasthan HC permits DNA test to determine maternity where mother denies daughter, sets aside trial court order

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that where a mother denies that the plaintiff is her daughter, the dispute is one of maternity and not paternity, and scientific investigation through a DNA test may be permitted to arrive at a conclusive determination. The Court set aside the trial court’s order rejecting an application for DNA testing and partly allowed the application under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Justice Bipin Gupta observed that the case presented a rare situation where the female parent herself denied the child to be hers, while not disputing her marriage with the father of the plaintiff. The Court noted that in such circumstances, the statutory presumptions under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the corresponding provision under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which primarily address paternity, do not contemplate a scenario where maternity itself is denied.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Smt. Bhauri Devi challenging the order dated February 24, 2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Sanganer, whereby her application seeking DNA testing was rejected in a civil suit concerning the validity of a registered will dated April 10, 2014 and her claim to a share in ancestral property.

The petitioner had instituted a suit seeking declaration of the will as null and void and a declaration of her ownership over half share of her father’s property. During the proceedings, the petitioner moved an application under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC seeking DNA testing of herself, defendant No.2 Smt. Bila Devi, and defendant No.3 Ramswaroop, contending that scientific investigation was necessary to conclusively establish her maternity, particularly in view of the denial by defendant No.2.

The trial court rejected the application on the grounds that directing a DNA test would infringe the privacy of the defendants and that the defendants had refused to undergo such testing. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Before the High Court, it was contended that the petitioner was an illiterate woman and had no documentary evidence to prove her maternity, and that DNA testing was the only conclusive method available. It was also argued that the denial by defendant No.2 necessitated scientific investigation to resolve the issue framed by the trial court regarding whether the petitioner was the daughter of late Shri Badri.

The respondents opposed the petition on the ground that directing DNA testing would violate their right to privacy and that the burden lay upon the petitioner to prove her claim. Reliance was also placed on the fact that a similar application in criminal proceedings had earlier been rejected.

After considering the rival submissions and examining the material on record, the High Court recorded that the dispute was not merely about the will but also involved a claim of ownership based on filial relationship. The Court noted that while the marriage between late Shri Badri and defendant No.2 was not in dispute, the denial of maternity by defendant No.2 made the issue fundamentally different from cases concerning paternity.

The Court observed that advancements in science now make it possible to conclusively determine not only paternity but also maternity through DNA testing. Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases including Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy and Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, the Court held that although a person cannot be forcibly subjected to DNA testing, a direction may be issued, and refusal to comply may invite adverse presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the corresponding provision under Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

The High Court held that there was no necessity to direct DNA testing of defendant No.3 Ramswaroop, as it was for him to establish his claim independently. However, the Court found merit in the petitioner’s request insofar as determination of maternity through DNA testing of defendant No.2 was concerned.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. The order dated February 24, 2022 was quashed and set aside. The application under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC was partly allowed, and the trial court was directed to order DNA testing of defendant No.2 Smt. Bila Devi and match the same with the DNA of the petitioner to ascertain maternity. The Court further directed that in the event of refusal by defendant No.2, consequences would follow in accordance with law. All pending applications were disposed of.

Case Title

Smt. Bhauri Devi vs Mahendra Kumar & Others

Case Number

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5426/2022

Court

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench

Bench

Justice Bipin Gupta

Date of Order

February 7, 2026

Advocates

For the petitioner: Mr. Anil Mehta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Raj Kamal Gaur and Mr. Yashodhar Pandey
For the respondents: Mr. Prahlad Sharma with Mr. Ramprasad Sharma, Mr. Khem Singh Rajawat, Mr. Lakhan Sharma and Mr. Akshay Sharma