Chaturbhuj Pradhan v. Amar Pradhan & Anr. 2026 INSC 600

Amar Pradhan (Respondent 1) claims to be the son of Chaturbhuj Pradhan (Appellant), born on September 10, 1999. He asserts that his birth resulted from consensual relations between his mother (Respondent 2) and Appellant in January 1999.

Appellant has consistently denied paternity. He relies on his acquittal in a 1999 criminal case registered by the mother under Section 376 of the IPC (rape).

Between 2003 and 2010, the parties were involved in several maintenance disputes. In 2005, a High Court order in a maintenance appeal observed that the relationship with Appellant had not been established. This matter was eventually disposed of in a Lok Adalat in 2024, noting that Amar had attained majority (24 years old) and the maintenance issue was essentially moot.

Upon reaching majority, Amar filed a civil suit seeking a formal declaration that he is Appellant’s son and is entitled to a 1/3rd share of Appellant’s property.

The Trial Court (First Additional Civil Judge, Class-II, Basna) ordered Appellant to undergo a DNA test to determine paternity. The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld this order, stating no other evidence could clearly establish paternity. Appellant appealed these decisions to the Supreme Court.

Indispensability of Evidence: The Court noted that Appellant has consistently denied paternity and there is no other evidence (such as a valid marriage, which would trigger Section 112 of the Evidence Act) that can provide a categorical answer. In the case of Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015) 1 SCC 365, it was held that courts may direct DNA examinations to determine the veracity of allegations that are central to the outcome of a case, though it should be avoided if possible. Similarly in the case of Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2024) 7 SCC 773, it was held that DNA tests should not be routine and should only be ordered in exceptional and deserving cases where the test is indispensable to resolve the controversy.

Nature of Previous Findings: The Court clarified that previous observations regarding paternity in maintenance cases were summary in nature and not the result of a full-dress trial. Since the current civil suit is specifically for a declaration of paternity, the issue is now directly and substantially in issue. The Court rejected Appellant’s argument that the suit was barred by res judicata, noting that the previous summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC do not preclude a proper civil finding.

Balancing Interests: The Court balanced Appellant’s right to privacy against Amar’s desire for closure and his legal rights. Amar has lived his entire life with his mother asserting Appellant is his father while authorities found otherwise. The case of Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph 2025 SCC OnLine SC 175 emphasized “balancing the interests” of parties and identified two blockades to ordering a test: (i) whether existing evidence is sufficient and (ii) a positive finding regarding the balance of interests. Therefore, without a DNA test, Amar might be forever denied rights he is entitled to as a son. The Court concluded the balance of interests lies in favor of Amar.