Latest JudgementHindu Marriage Act, 1955

X v. Y, 2026

The statutory presumption under Section 112 favors the legitimacy of a child born during marriage unless there is pleading of non-access.

Telangana High Court·15 March 2026
X v. Y, 2026
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Telangana High Court

Date of Decision

15 March 2026

Judges

Justice Renuka Yara

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • A matrimonial dispute arose after the husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) seeking divorce alleging adultery by the wife.

  • The husband claimed the minor child was not his biological daughter and sought DNA testing of the child and himself to determine paternity.

  • The trial court allowed DNA testing, relying on Supreme Court precedents, despite concerns about the child’s welfare.

  • The wife filed a revision petition, arguing that Section 112 presumption favors the child’s legitimacy and that DNA testing would harm the child’s identity and privacy.

Issues

  1. Whether a minor child can be subjected to DNA testing to determine paternity in matrimonial disputes?

  2. Whether Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act protects the legitimacy of a child born during marriage?

  3. Whether the child’s welfare, identity, and privacy override the husband’s request for DNA testing?

  4. Whether the husband can prove adultery without involving the child in DNA testing?

Held

  • The trial court order directing DNA testing was set aside.

  • The husband remains free to produce other evidence in support of his claims.

Analysis

  • Emphasizes the principle of assessing legal actions through the prism of the child, not just the interests of the spouses.

  • Reinforces Section 112 Indian Evidence Act: child born during marriage is presumed legitimate unless non-access is specifically alleged.

  • Upholds child’s right to identity, privacy, and welfare over procedural expediency in matrimonial disputes.

  • The judgment aligns with Supreme Court precedent in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, limiting the use of DNA tests on minor children unless strictly necessary.