Kerala HC - DNA Test Denial May Stigmatize Children of Cohabiting Couples

The recent decision of the Kerala High Court emphasized that when there is initial evidence of a significant period of cohabitation between a man and a woman, requests for a DNA test to establish the paternity of a child allegedly born from such a relationship cannot be disregarded. The court recognized that disregarding such pleas would not only stigmatize the child and the mother but also disregard the importance of determining the child's paternity. Justice Mary Joseph made this observation while dismissing a man's challenge against a family court order that mandated him to undergo a blood test for DNA verification to establish the paternity of the child.

According to the facts presented, the petitioner and the woman had developed a romantic relationship and were living together as husband and wife. When the woman became pregnant, the petitioner sent her back to her home in Mumbai but assured her over the phone that he would marry her. The woman stated that the petitioner financially supported her and even requested her to come to Kollam for her delivery, where he resided at the time, in order to provide care during her hospital stay.

However, upon arriving in Kollam, the woman discovered that the petitioner had married another woman. When she confronted him, he promised to support her and the child but warned her against disclosing their relationship to others. The woman claimed that despite their differences, they continued to cohabit, with the petitioner providing financial support for her and their daughter. The petitioner even promised to purchase a flat in the woman's name and take out an insurance policy for their daughter's future. However, he failed to fulfill these duties. As a result, the petitioner discontinued providing financial assistance in 2013.

Initially, the woman filed a complaint with the Kerala Women's Commission, which ordered the petitioner to undergo a DNA examination. However, due to the petitioner's lack of cooperation, the test could not be carried out. Subsequently, the woman approached the Ernakulam Family Court, wherein the petitioner was to have a blood test for DNA verification. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner sought relief from the High Court.

The petitioner argued that the woman led an immoral lifestyle and was attempting to defame him in order to extort money. After evaluating the evidence and legal precedents, the court concluded that there was prima facie evidence of a lengthy cohabitation between the petitioner and the woman.

Consequently, the court upheld the order for the petitioner to undergo a DNA test to establish the child's paternity, thereby dismissing the petitioner's case and affirming the family court's decision.