R. RAJENDRAN versus KAMAR NISHA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2025] 12 S.C.R. 123 · Decided: 10-11-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 12 S.C.R. 123 : 2025 INSC 1304
R. Rajendran 
v. 
Kamar Nisha and Others
(Criminal Appeal No. 1013 of 2021)
10 November 2025
[Prashant Kumar Mishra* and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The High Court directed the appellant to appear before a Hospital 
for collection of blood samples for DNA profiling. Whether the High 
Court was justified in directing the appellant to undergo DNA testing.
Headnotes†
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.112 – Penal Code, 1860 – Tamil Nadu 
Women Harassment Act – Respondent no.1 married one AL in 
the year 2001 – AL requested the appellant-doctor to refer his 
wife-respondent no.1, to a Gynaecologist, for the necessary 
treatment – However, instead of referring respondent no.1, 
the appellant developed physical relations with her, resulting 
in the birth of a child on 08.03.2007 – When the child was 
approximately one and a half years old, the appellant continued 
his extramarital relationship with respondent no.1 – Upon 
learning this, AL allegedly deserted her – Appellant refused 
to marry respondent no.1 – FIR registered u/ss.417 and 420 
of the IPC and s.4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment 
Act – Respondent no.1 filed writ petition finding no appreciable 
advancement in the investigation and sought for conducting a 
DNA test of her child, allegedly born through the appellant – 
After various rounds of litigation, the Division Bench of the 
High Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 10.05.2017 
directed the appellant to appear before the Hospital for 
collection of blood samples – Correctness:
Held: Respondent no.1 in the present case seeks a direction for 
DNA testing precisely to dislodge the statutory presumption of 
legitimacy that safeguards the child, and to establish the appellant 
as the biological father so as to sustain the criminal charges of 
cheating and harassment – In the case at hand, the child was 
* Author
124
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
born on 08.03.2007, during the subsistence of a valid marriage 
between respondent no.1 and AL, solemnized in the year 2001 – 
The statutory presumption u/s.112 of the Evidence Act operates 
in favour of AL being the legitimate father of the child – This 
presumption can be displaced only by proving non-access between 
the spouses – It is the case of respondent no.1 that AL deserted 
her sometime in 2008-2009, well after the child had attained the 
age of approximately one and half years – No material has been 
placed on record by respondent no.1 to substantiate her claim of 
desertion, which remains a bare assertion unsupported by any 
evidence – It is also not the case of respondent no.1 that AL was 
suffering from any physical incapacity or impotency – Respondent 
no.1 has not indicated any circumstance even remotely, suggesting 
that AL was physically absent during the relevant time when the 
child could have been conceived – At its highest, respondent no.1’s 
case is one of simultaneous access, that she had physical relations 
with the appellant while still married to AL – Mere simultaneous 
access does not negate the husband’s access, nor does it suffice 
to displace the statutory presumption u/s.112 of the Evidence Act – 
DNA test would not serve the best interests of the parties – In the 
present case, this balance weighs decisively against ordering DNA 
testing – Such a direction would constitute a significant intrusion 
into the privacy and dignity of both, the appellant and the child, 
implicating the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed u/Art.21 of 
the Constitution of India – The child has now attained majority – At the 
time when the FIR was registered and the direction for DNA profiling 
was issued by the High Court, the child was still a minor – In such 
circumstances, the best interests of the child ought to have been 
a paramount consideration before any intrusive forensic procedure 
was contemplated – The paternity of the child is collateral to the 
primary allegations of cheating and harassment – The FIR itself 
reveals that the gravamen of the allegations bears no nexus to the 
paternity of the child – The offences alleged do not, by their nature, 
necessitate ascertainment of paternity or any forensic determination 
through DNA analysis – Thus, the impugned judgment of the High 
Court cannot be sustained. [Paras 42, 35, 45, 51, 53, 58]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.112 – Birth during marriage, conclusive 
proof of legitimacy – Presumption:
Held: It is evident from the statutory language o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.