Loading dispatches...
← Return to Newsroomgeneral
Man claims child not mine, wife ‘adulterous’, court says too late for DNA test
Breaking
British Indian pair fight extradition to US over alleged cancer drug fraud
New DelhiUpdated: Jul 2, 2026 10:29 AM IST The Jharkhand High Court observed that the parent neither had any right to give consent to a DNA test of the adult child nor had any means to enforce such an order of a DNA test. (AI-generated image)In a matrimonial battle, the Jharkhand High Court has rejected the plea of a man who sought a DNA test, claiming that his wife was in an adulterous relationship when she conceived a child. Rejecting the request, the court noted that the child was now a 24-year-old man. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary dismissed the husband’s plea challenging a trial court’s order that had rejected his plea for a DNA test of the child in a pending divorce case based on allegations of adultery.“Now the child has attained the age of about 24 years and the child who has now become an adult cannot be forced to be subjected to DNA test,” the order dated June 29 read. The court further held that no adverse inference can be drawn against the mother if the child refuses a DNA test. The husband claimed that after his marriage in 2000, he left for Surat in 2001 for work and returned only in May 2002, when he allegedly found his wife in an advanced stage of pregnancy. According to him, a village panchayat was convened where the wife and her parents admitted her alleged adulterous relationship. The child was born in 2002. The divorce plea was filed in 2008, and after the examination of four witnesses, the husband moved an application in 2010 seeking a DNA test of the child to establish his allegation of adultery. The trial court rejected the plea. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary said that in case of a minor, the consent for getting a DNA test could be obtained from the natural guardian.Although the petitioner charged the wife, the court observed that the alleged illegitimate child was not made a party in the matter, and the husband failed to substantiate his claim of non-access to the wife during the period that she conceived. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the husband moved the high court. He argued that in a divorce petition based on adultery, the child was not a necessary party and relied on judicial precedents permitting DNA testing. The wife opposed the plea, contending that the husband had never pleaded “non-access” in his divorce petition.Story continues below this ad Can’t compel a major: Court The high court noted that during the proceedings before the trial court, the child was a minor but now he had attained majority. In case of a minor, the consent for getting a DNA test will naturally be taken care of by the natural guardian However, the child had become a major of about 24 years and cannot be compelled to give a DNA test. The trial court rightly dismissed the petition seeking examination of the child for DNA test. The court observed that the mother, having lost the right to represent the child as the guardian, neither has any right to give consent to a DNA test of the child nor has any means to enforce such an order of a DNA test, if passed by the court. The trial court rightly recorded that “access” does not only mean an actual marital intercourse, but also opportunity for sexual intercourse between the parties, which the plaintiff has failed to prove that he lacked. Plea dismissed The court, therefore, dismissed the plea, while also noting that despite the child attaining majority, the husband had not taken steps to implead him as a party. It added that the child’s legitimacy cannot be doubted merely based on probabilities or suspicions. Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience. Expertise Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond
New DelhiJun 30, 2026 04:28 PM IST Asaram Bapu was convicted by a trial court in 2018 for the rape of a minor girl and sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his life. (File Photo)The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought government response on Asaram Bapu’s appeal challenging the Rajasthan High Court order upholding his conviction and life sentence in a case of rape of a minor girl. Issuing a notice to the Rajasthan government, a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Sheel Nagu said the medical facilities extended to the self-styled godman till now would continue.Justice Sundresh said the court will have to hear the survivor too and cannot treat it like any other criminal case. “Let us hear them also…The very case is that you are in such a dominant position. Therefore, we have to look at it with a different approach,” he said. Asaram was convicted by a trial court in 2018 for the rape of a minor girl and sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his life. He challenged his conviction, claiming, among other things, that he was framed by extortionists. Upholding his conviction and sentence, the high court on May 27 cancelled Asaram’s bail, ordered forfeiture of his bail bonds, and directed him to surrender. However, the high court set aside his conviction for gangrape, aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and criminal conspiracy. It upheld his conviction under Indian Penal Code sections relating to trafficking of a minor; wrongful confinement; criminal intimidation; sexual harassment; word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman; and for being a relative, guardian, teacher, or person in a position of trust or authority who commits rape on such woman, besides under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, including for sexual assault. Interim bail on medical grounds On Tuesday, the survivor’s counsel pointed out that Asaram had also filed an application seeking interim bail on medical grounds. Justice Sundresh said the court will consider the request only if there is a “grave necessity”. “We are not considering a suspension of sentence… If there is some usual health issue, we are not going to consider. Subject to hearing them, and you, we will see if there is any grave necessity. Otherwise we are not going to…,” he said.Story continues below this ad The survivor’s counsel also said Asaram had suppressed crucial facts in his appeal. She pointed out that the Supreme Court had earlier denied him interim relief. “In this case, there are two minor victims and therefore the provisions of Pocso and Juvenile Justice Act are involved,” she submitted. The court gave the state and the survivor’s counsel four weeks to file their responses. Convicted by social media, says Asaram’s counsel Senior advocates D S Naidu and Devadatt Kamat and advocate Shashwat Anand, appearing for Asaram, said he was close to 90 years and had debilitating disorders. The court was informed that after the high court order, he was taken to hospital on June 2 and is continuing there.Story continues below this ad Naidu said, “This court is the only saviour because we are convicted by social media than by the honourable courts themselves.” He added that the high court had acquitted Asaram’s co-accused.
Discussion (0)