Paternity disputes and blood tests: courts should not order scientific testing routinely, especially where legitimacy is presumed by law.

In a paternity dispute concerning a child born during a valid marriage, a blood group test should not be ordered as a matter of course. The court must first see a strong prima facie case, because such testing can amount to a fishing inquiry and may prejudice the child's status and the mother's reputation; no person can be compelled to give a blood sample against his or her will. The presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act remains strong and is displaced only by proof of non-access, which scientific testing by itself cannot override. The refusal to direct blood testing was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a court can direct a blood group test in a paternity dispute as a matter of course; (ii) whether the presumption of legitimacy under the Evidence Act can be displaced by such a test in the absence of proof of non-access.

Issue (i): whether a court can direct a blood group test in a paternity dispute as a matter of course.

Analysis: Blood grouping may provide useful scientific evidence and can assist in excluding paternity, but it is not to be ordered routinely. A request for such a test cannot be entertained when it amounts to a roving or fishing inquiry. The court must first examine whether the applicant has made out a strong prima facie case and whether ordering the test would unjustly prejudice the child's status and the mother's character. No person can be compelled to give a blood sample for analysis against his or her will.

Conclusion: A blood group test cannot be ordered as a matter of course and may be refused where the request is speculative or unsupported.

Issue (ii): whether the presumption of legitimacy under the Evidence Act can be displaced by such a test in the absence of proof of non-access.

Analysis: The presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage is a strong rebuttable presumption, and the only legally recognised mode of displacing it is proof of non-access. Section 112 of the Evidence Act operates as a conclusive rule unless non-access is shown, and scientific testing cannot override that statutory standard by itself. The court therefore treated the blood test request as insufficient where it was made only to avoid liability for maintenance and without establishing a foundation for rebutting the statutory presumption.

Conclusion: The presumption of legitimacy was not displaced, and the request for blood testing was rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to order a blood group test was upheld and the challenge to that refusal failed, with the incidental maintenance-related relief left undisturbed in consequence.

Ratio Decidendi: In a paternity dispute involving a child born during a valid marriage, a blood group test cannot be ordered as a matter of course; it may be refused unless the applicant first establishes a strong prima facie case based on non-access sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of legitimacy.

---