Bombay High Court

ANANDA RANGRAO BHUI (SHINDE) AND ORS.versusANNAPURNA RAJU BHOI AND ANR.

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court will not interfere with the lower court’s order and permits the petitioners to file a fresh application for a DNA test, to be decided on its merits.

Summary

The petitioners challenged a lower court order dated 15‑02‑2021 that rejected their application to compel the respondents to undergo a DNA test in a partition suit concerning marital status and paternity. The respondents had filed the application before evidence was taken, arguing that such a compulsion is not tenable and that the petitioners' defence was frivolous. The petitioners contended that the DNA test was essential to resolve the dispute and that the rejection was premature given the advanced stage of the proceedings. The High Court, while noting that DNA tests are permissible only in exceptional circumstances, declined to interfere with the lower court’s order. Instead, it allowed the petitioners to file a fresh application for a DNA test, to be decided on its own merits, and disposed of the writ petition without further intervention.

Issues considered

Whether a party can be compelled to undergo a DNA test in a civil suit concerning marital status and paternity.
Whether the lower court erred in rejecting the application for a DNA test at the pre‑evidence stage.

Subjects

DNA test
paternity
marital status
partition suit
civil procedure
evidence
compulsory medical test
exceptional circumstances

Judgment

                                                     76-WP-8685-2022 (C).doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 8685 OF 2022

Ananda Rangrao Bhui (shinde) And Ors.                            ...Petitioners
     Versus
Annapurna Raju Bhoi And Anr.                                   ...Respondents

                                  …..
Adv. Nikhil Pawar a/w Adv. Manasi Patil, Advocate for Petitioners.
Adv. Anand S. Patil (through V.C.) a/w Adv. Soham V. Powar, Advocate
for Respondents.
                                  …..


                                     CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                     DATE     : 06th OCTOBER, 2026.

P.C. :

           The matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the

parties.

2.         Heard.

3.         The petitioners take exception to the order dated 15.02.2021

passed below Exhibit-32 in RCS No.401 of 2020, rejecting the

application to compel respondent to undergo a DNA test.

4.         The respondents have preferred RCS No.401 of 2020 for partition

and possession. The petitioners contested the suit on various grounds.

Petitioner No.1 disputed any marital relationship with respondent No.2



     ZIP                                                               1 of 3
                                                        76-WP-8685-2022 (C).doc




and the paternity of respondent No.1. The parties have rival claims

regarding their marital status.

5.         The respondents resorted to an application at Exhibit-32 seeking

a direction to petitioner No.1 to undergo a DNA test, which is rejected

by the impugned order. The application was preferred before the

commencement of the evidence in the suit. It is submitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioners that now the recording of evidence

has commenced and the application is rejected considering the

advanced stage of the proceedings, including other reasons.

6.         The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the defence

of the petitioners is frivolous and that such type of applications are not

tenable compelling a party to undergo a DNA test.

7.         The suit has proceeded further and the evidence is being

recorded. A party cannot be compelled to undergo a DNA test in a

routine manner. In exceptional circumstances, such a recourse is

permissible. Instead of deciding the merits of the matter at this stage of

the proceedings, it would be appropriate to grant liberty to the

petitioners to file an application as is permissible in law.

8.         The writ petition is disposed of without causing any interference

in the impugned order.

9.         The petitioners shall be at liberty to file an application seeking a




     ZIP                                                                  2 of 3
                                                76-WP-8685-2022 (C).doc




direction for a DNA test, as is permissible in law, which shall be

considered on its own merits. This Court has not expressed any view at

this juncture.

                                          [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]




   ZIP                                                            3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…