Woman Who Denies Being Claimant's Mother Can Be Directed to Take DNA Test: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner sued to have a registered Will of 10.04.2014, made by her late father Badri in favour of defendant No. 1, declared void, claiming the land was ancestral and seeking a declaration as owner of his half share (paras 2, 14). The defendants, including Badri's widow (defendant No. 2), denied that she was the couple's daughter and said their son was defendant No. 3 (para 3). An issue was framed on whether she is Badri's daughter (paras 5, 15). Her application under Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC for a DNA test was rejected on 24.02.2022 on the grounds of privacy and the defendants' refusal (paras 4, 7).

The suit was not confined to the Will: the petitioner claimed her father's half share, and the trial court had framed an issue on her parentage (paras 14-15). Defendant No. 2 accepted that Badri was her husband but denied that the petitioner was her child, so the question was maternity, not paternity; most judgments cited by both sides dealt with paternity (paras 16-17). Calling a mother's denial of her child a "rarest of rare" case, the Court noted that Section 112 of the Evidence Act and Section 116 of the BSA presume only a man's parentage and never contemplated a woman denying a child born of her womb (paras 18-19). Without a presumption, a child struggles to prove parentage, but DNA testing now settles maternity conclusively (paras 20-21). On privacy, the Court held that a person cannot be forced to undergo the test but can be directed to; non-appearance or refusal lets the court draw a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, now Section 119 of the BSA, as Dipanwita Roy held (para 22). No test of defendant No. 3 was needed; he must prove he is Badri's natural son (para 23).