( 2025:JHHC:20857 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 642 of 2025 Chhotu Thakur, aged about 57 years, son of late Yadunandan Thakur, resident of Kumhartoli, Ward No. 07, Chakradharpur, P.O. and P.S. Chakradharpur, District-West Singhbhum …………Petitioner Versus Neelam Kumari, aged about 36 years, wife of Sri Chhotu Thakur and daughter of Sita Ram Thakur, resident of Kumhartoli, Ward No. 07, Chakradharpur, P.O. and P.S. Chakradharpur, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand, presently residing at 110, Mahulsai, Ward No. 24, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa Sadar, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand .…… Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : 05/Dated: 29/07/2025 Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 18.02.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa in Original Suit No. 114 of 2024 whereby a petition dated 07.01.2025 filed by the petitioner for D.N.A Test of the child, has been rejected by the learned court. 3. Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is husband of opposite party and the petitioner herein instituted original suit in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum under section 13 (1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 read with Section 7 of Explanation (a) of the Family Courts Act, 1954 which was registered as Original Suit No. 114 of 2024. He submits that grounds have been taken in the said suit. He further submits that the opposite party left her matrimonial home in the month of October, 2018 and Aayushi Kumari was born on 16.09.2019 ( 2025:JHHC:20857 ) 2 and in between October, 2019 to 16.09.2019, the petitioner has not cohabit the opposite party so it is not possible to have a child. He submits that a petition was filed for conducting D.N.A. Test which has been rejected by the learned court. He further submits that for just decision of the case D.N.A. test of the child is necessary. On these grounds, he submits that impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. From the impugned order, it transpires that the said petition was filed by the petitioner and the learned court has found that the petitioner has not alleged that his wife was leading adulterous life with any person and no specific name has been mentioned by the petitioner that Aayushi Kumari was born with the intimate relation of other person. The learned court has further found that D.N.A. Test may be ordered only, if a strong prima facie case of non access is made out with sufficient material placed before the court to arrive at a decision and further stated that balance of interest does not support mandating a D.N.A. Test as it is likely to have a dis-proportionately adverse impact on the petitioner and opposite party. The learned court has held that the petitioner has not been able to establish by adducing any cogent, reliable and consistent evidence that there was no access of petitioner and opposite party in between October 2018 to 16.09.2019 and in view of that the learned court has held that there is no eminent need for D.N.A. 5. The Courts are required to examine the proportionality of the legitimate aims being pursued i.e. whether the same are not arbitrary or discriminatory, whether they may have an adverse impact on the person and that they justify the encroachment upon the privacy and personal autonomy of the person, being subjected to the DNA test. 6. Thus, merely because something is permissible under the ( 2025:JHHC:20857 ) 3 law, cannot be directed as a matter of course to be performed particularly when a direction to that effect may encroach privacy and physical autonomy of a person. Such direction would violate the privacy right of a person subjected to such test. 7. Moreover the D.N.A. test of wife has not been sought and child has been sought by filing of such petition. The Court finds that the learned court has given a cogent reason and dismissed the said petition. 8. As such no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/A.F.R