1. The review petition is filed to review the judgment passed in the above-captioned original petition. The review petitioner was the 1st respondent in the original petition, which was filed by the 1st respondent herein assailing the order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2021 in O.S.No.387 of 2019 by the Court of the Munsiff, Perumbavoor (in short, 'Trial Court'), declining to refer the parties to the suit to undergo a Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Test. The 2nd respondent in the review petition, the mother of the 1st respondent, was the 2nd respondent in the original petition. For convenience, the parties are referred to by their status in the review petition.

2. The 1st respondent has filed the suit to declare that he is the son of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. However, the petitioner has denied the said allegation. On the contrary, the 2nd respondent has admitted the assertion in the plaint. In view of the petitioner’s denial of the relationship and the paternity of the 1st respondent, the latter filed an application to refer the parties to the suit to a DNA Test for the proper determination of the suit. However, the Trial Court dismissed the application. Challenging the said order, the original petition was filed. By the impugned judgment, this Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and referred the parties to the Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology, Thiruvananthapuram, for conducting the DNA Test.

3. It is the petitioner's case in the review petition that, as he was suffering from age-related ailments, he was precluded from engaging a lawyer to contest the original petition. Consequently, the impugned judgment was passed without affording him an opportunity of being heard. The DNA Test can be ordered only in deserving cases, where there is no possibility of adducing any other evidence. Furthermore, this Court has failed to consider that an individual cannot be compelled to undergo a DNA test, as such compulsion would infringe their personal liberty and right to privacy. This Court has also failed to consider the difficulties and inconveniences that would be imposed on the parties by the proposed DNA Test. There is an error apparent on the face of the judgment.

4. I have heard Sri. Krishnanunni T., the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assisted by Sri.C. Dilip; Sri. M.K. Gopimohanan, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri. Jayaprasad M.R., the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the review petition. He contended that, as the 2nd respondent has admitted her relationship with the petitioner, there is no necessity to conduct a DNA Test. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph [2025 KHC OnLine 6076] to buttress his contention that no person can be compelled to undergo a DNA Test as it would infringe their right to privacy.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the review petition. They submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment warranting its review. It is after considering the authoritative precedents on the point and the facts of the case that this Court ordered the DNA Test, particularly because the petitioner has denied the paternity of the 1st respondent. The petitioner's sole intention is to protract the determination of the suit. Hence, the review petition may be dismissed.

7. The 1st respondent's specific case is that he was born out of an outside the marriage relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Although the 2nd respondent has admitted the above assertion in her written statement, the petitioner has denied it.

8. To disprove the assertion of the petitioner that he is not the putative father of the 1st respondent, the latter filed the application to refer the parties for a DNA Test. Although the Trial Court had dismissed the said application, this Court, after considering the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik and another [AIR 2014 SC 932], Sharda v. Dharmpal [AIR 2003 SC 3450] and the decision of the Delhi High Court in Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari and another [AIR 2012 Delhi 151], held that the 1st respondent had made out a strong prima facie case to subject the parties to a DNA Test, which would be the best course to decide the 'lis'.

9. In Ivan Rathinam's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the earlier precedents on the point of subjecting a person to DNA Test, the right to privacy and the right to dignity of a person, has declared that the courts should balance the interests of those involved and must consider whether it is possible to arrive at a truth without the use of a DNA Test. It is further held that the courts should consider the existing evidence to assess the presumption of legitimacy. Nonetheless, if the evidence is insufficient, the courts may order a DNA Test. Once the insufficiency of evidence is established, the court must consider whether ordering a DNA Test is in the best interest of the parties involved and must ensure that it does not cause undue harm to the parties. The two principles laid down to order a DNA Test are: (i) insufficiency of evidence; and (ii) a positive finding regarding the balance of interests.

10. In the case at hand, it is undisputed that there is no legal marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The respondents claim that the 1st respondent was born in an outside the marriage relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, which is bluntly denied by the petitioner. Therefore, the question of legitimacy and the conclusive proof under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not arise in the present case. It is a case of disputed paternity. Now, in such cases, where there is a total denial of the relationship leading to a child's birth, scientific evidence is one of the better-known methods recognised by the law to ascertain the truth. It is after considering the exposition of law in the above-cited precedents that this Court referred the parties to a DNA Test. In light of the materials on record and the law on the point, I am satisfied that the 1st respondent has made a strong prima facie case to order a DNA Test, due to the lack of other evidence, and the same would be the best course available to decide the question of paternity. I don't see any reason why the petitioner should shirk away from subjecting himself to a DNA Test, particularly since he has confidently denied the paternity of the 1st respondent. The balance of interest rests in favour of the 1st respondent. I don't find any error apparent on the face of the judgment warranting interference by this Court. It is clarified that, if the petitioner refuses to undergo a DNA test, the Trial Court shall draw an adverse inference against him. The review petition is devoid of any merit and is consequently dismissed. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of the order to the Trial Court to comply with the directions in the judgment in the original petition.