Archive · 26 Aug 2026
Karnataka High Court Rejects DNA Plea in Paternity Dispute
A 44-year-old man said an elderly couple were his biological parents.
He asked a court to order a DNA test to prove it.
The Karnataka High Court refused the request.
The judges said DNA tests are very private and can affect people’s dignity and family relationships.
They should not be ordered simply to investigate whether a claim might be true.
The man had not shown enough basic evidence, including proof that the couple were married.
His grandparents, who raised him, had also not testified.
The court said he had not shown why other evidence could not decide the case.
The Karnataka High Court rejected a 44-year-old man’s plea for DNA testing to establish that an elderly couple were his parents.
Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil said DNA tests cannot be used for a “fishing enquiry” or as a routine investigative tool.
The court found that the man had not established foundational facts, including the alleged marriage between the respondents.
It noted that the man’s grandparents, whom he said raised him, had not been examined as material witnesses.
The court said testing requires a strong prima facie case and an “eminent need,” while balancing privacy, dignity and legitimacy.
- Who
- A 44-year-old man, an elderly couple in their 70s, and the Karnataka High Court, led in this matter by Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil.
- What
- The court rejected the man’s request for a DNA test to establish paternity and related legal rights.
- When
- The underlying suit was filed in 2012; the trial court rejected the DNA request in 2022, and the High Court ruled on August 20.
- Where
- The dispute began before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kolar Gold Fields, Karnataka, and was challenged in the Karnataka High Court.
- Why
- The court found that the man had not established a strong prima facie factual basis or shown an eminent need for intrusive testing.
Man seeking DNA evidence
Respondents and court opposing routine testing
Whether paternity should be tested
Man seeking DNA evidence
The man claimed the couple were his biological parents and sought a court-appointed medical practitioner to conduct DNA and related tests.
Respondents and court opposing routine testing
The respondents opposed the request, and the courts found that he had not produced prima facie evidence establishing the alleged relationship.
Evidence needed before testing
Man seeking DNA evidence
The man relied on a DNA test to establish his claimed biological connection and sought legal rights as the couple’s son.
Respondents and court opposing routine testing
The High Court said he first had to establish foundational facts, including the alleged marriage, and could not rely on an assertion alone.
Privacy and judicial limits
Man seeking DNA evidence
The requested test was presented as a way to determine biological parentage.
Respondents and court opposing routine testing
The court said DNA testing is intrusive and cannot become a fishing or roving inquiry; it must be necessary for fairly deciding the dispute.
- Petitioner’s age
- 44 years old
- Respondents’ ages
- In their 70s
- Underlying case
- Filed in 2012
- Trial-court decision
- The DNA-test request was rejected on September 2, 2022
- High Court judge
- Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil
- Required threshold
- A strong prima facie case and an “eminent need”
- Key legal concern
- DNA testing can affect privacy, dignity and legitimacy