the Allahabad High Court denied relief to Dr. Ifraq Mohammad Husain, a doctor, who had sought to challenge paternity through a private DNA test conducted on his daughter’s blood sample. This action was taken by Dr. Husain in an attempt to evade paying maintenance to his wife and daughters, alleging his wife’s adultery.
The court, presided over by Justice Rahul Chaturvedi, firmly dismissed Dr. Husain’s plea, labeling the DNA report obtained from a Hyderabad lab as “trash” that cannot be relied upon. The court emphasized that such secretive and unilateral DNA testing without proper legal basis or pleading regarding non-access to his wife during their marriage could not be condoned. It further stated that the child’s welfare must be prioritized over parental disputes, condemning any attempt to use a child as a pawn to prove adultery.
The case stemmed from Dr. Husain’s marriage conducted under Muslim rites in 2013, which ended in separation by 2017. His wife subsequently sought maintenance for herself and their daughters, prompting Dr. Husain to challenge paternity through the contested DNA test.
The court’s decision underscored the legal presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, highlighting that Dr. Husain failed to substantiate any claim of non-access to his wife during the relevant period. The court cited the Supreme Court’s precedent, advocating against frivolous DNA testing in the absence of substantial evidence.
Furthermore, the judgment criticized Dr. Husain’s allegations against his wife’s character as baseless and derogatory, aimed solely at evading financial obligations. It stressed that such tactics undermine the child’s right to identity and stability, advocating for alternative means to resolve marital disputes without jeopardizing children’s well-being.
Ultimately, the Allahabad High Court upheld previous orders for maintenance payments to Dr. Husain’s wife and daughters, denying his plea for a fresh DNA test and affirming the lower court’s decisions. The case serves as a precedent against misuse of DNA testing in family disputes, emphasizing the court’s role in protecting the interests of children and upholding legal standards of evidence in familial matters.
