Bombay HC
NEW DELHI: A poor woman sought a DNA test on a man to prove that her daughter was born to him. In 2006, the man agreed to undergo the test but said the woman seeking the medical examination must bear the cost. The woman didn’t have the money. The trial court and Bombay HC had dismissed her plea.Two decades later, the daughter after reaching adulthood moved the Bombay HC seeking DNA test of the man and herself in quest of her paternity and said she was ready to bear the expenses of the medical tests. But the HC said the judicial orders passed two decades ago have attained finality and these cannot be challenged now.The daughter through advocate Vatsalya Vigya told a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Aravind Kumar that in 2006 the petitioner was a minor and now she is an adult and can bear the expenses of DNA test of herself and the man to prove paternity. The bench issued notice to the man, who is an advocate, and sought his response by Sep 18.Petitioner said her maternal grandfather was working in a colliery in Chandrapur, Maharashtra and became unfit to work in 2002. To get appointed in his place on compassionate grounds, her mother sought help from an advocate to file a case. The advocate, promising to marry her, established physical relations with her and because of that she became pregnant and the petitioner was born in 2003. But the man refused to keep his promise.As the biological father refused to acknowledge the relationship with the daughter, the petitioner’s mother had moved the court seeking alimony and DNA test. But with the man refusing to bear the expenses of the DNA test, and the petitioner’s mother having no financial wherewithal, the trial court rejected her application in 2006.In 2023, the petitioner, on attaining majority, filed an application seeking DNA test of the man and herself to examine paternal relations between them. This was opposed by the advocate. The trial court rejected the plea. She challenged this order before Bombay HC, which on Apr 2 dismissed her plea saying it would not be proper to reopen the old case now.
