Golapi Majhi v. Bhabanishankar Budulal @ Kisan & Ors., 2025
It highlights the non-utility of DNA evidence in a partition suit where legal status is already accepted by the family.
Judgement Details
Court
Orissa High Court
Date of Decision
6 September 2025
Judges
Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
A partition suit was filed by OP No. 1 (plaintiff) involving several shareholders.
-
The Petitioner (Defendant No. 1) challenged the entitlement of Defendant No. 3 (OP No. 3), alleging he was not the son of Thutha Budula @ Kisan (deceased shareholder).
-
The Petitioner sought a DNA test of OP No. 3 to disprove his parentage.
-
The Trial Court rejected the application for DNA testing.
-
The Petitioner filed petition before the High Court to challenge this rejection.
Issues
-
Whether a DNA test can be compelled in a civil suit for partition to disprove the parentage of a party?
-
Whether such compulsion violates the right to privacy under Article 21?
-
What is the evidentiary value of a mother’s testimony regarding her child’s parentage?
-
Is the status in a joint family determinable solely by biological ties?
Judgement
-
The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the trial court’s order denying the DNA test.
-
The DNA testing in this context is unwarranted and infringes on the right to privacy under Article 21.
-
It was Held that compelling a party to undergo a DNA test in a partition suit amounts to an insult to motherhood, especially where the mother acknowledges the parentage.
-
It was Reiterated that legal parentage and recognition in society are not solely determined by biological evidence.
Held
-
The partition suits are to determine shares based on legal and social recognition, not necessarily biological ties.
-
A DNA test to disprove parentage without prima facie evidence cannot be permitted.
-
The mother's testimony is valid and sufficient; her admission is binding unless contradicted.
-
The court reaffirmed the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
-
It was Directed that legal rights in family property cannot be decided merely by scientific tests unless justified by compelling evidence.
-
The Right to privacy prevails over a mere desire to “establish truth” through DNA in absence of legal necessity.
Analysis
-
The judgment balances individual dignity and privacy with legal procedures.
-
It highlights the non-utility of DNA evidence in a partition suit where legal status is already accepted by the family.
-
It shows strong deference to social recognition and existing family structures.
-
It emphasizes that scientific testing must not override constitutional protections arbitrarily.
-
It upholds the presumption in favor of legitimacy and maternal authority in declaring paternity.
-
It aligns with progressive privacy jurisprudence post-Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), even though not cited directly.