Source: https://rahulsiasblog.com/2016/11/25/dna-paternity-tests-principles-to-be-kept-in-mind-while-ordering-dna-tests-in-matrimonial-litigation-and-interplay-with-section-112-of-the-evidence-act/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:49:00+00:00

Document:
Applications for directions to the other party to appear or produce off springs or siblings for DNA testing are made by parties seeking to establish, either, the factum of the relationship, or, their challenge to the relationship. It could be by a person claiming parentage or by a person challenging paternity of another.
The court in an appropriate case, can direct medical examination of a party to matrimonial litigation as well, provided that the applicant seeking such examination has a “strong prima facie” case and has placed “substantial material” on the court record in support of his/her case. (Reliance on AIR 2003 SC 3450 – Sharda v. Dharampal). Only when the court feels that the DNA test is eminently needed, should a DNA test be ordered.
The presumption of legitimacy (Section 112 of the Evidence Act) thus cannot be disturbed by “slender” materials unless “compulsive and clinching” facts are brought to shake the presumption and call for a DNA examination. Proof of non-access is essential. Thus, the strong presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act of legitimacy of a child born during marriage can only be rebutted by “strong, clear, satisfying and conclusive” evidence of “non-access”.((2005) 4 SCC 449 Sh. Banarasi Dass v. Mrs. Teeku Datta).
“Modern technology providing for possibility of proof of fact not available at time when Statute was enacted. S.112 of Evidence Act, 1872, interpreted in light of the fact that DNA tests can provide conclusive proof of paternity. The interest of justice is best served be ascertaining the truth and the court could be finished with the best available science and may not be left to bank upon presumptions, unless science has no answer to the facts in issue. When there is a conflict between conclusive proof envisaged under the law based on a presumption and proof based on scientific advancement accepted by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over the former.
165. Principles laid down in prior judgments including AIR 1934 PC 49, Karapaya Servai v. Mayandi; AIR 1954 SC 176, Chilukuri Venkateswarlu v. Chilukuri Venkatanarayan; AIR 1993 SC 2295, Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal & Anr.; AIR 2001 SC 2226, Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram; AIR 2003 SC 3450, Sharda v. Dharmpal and AIR 2010 SC 2851, Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women & Anr. have not been overturned and bind the present consideration.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.