MUMBAI, July 10 -- The Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court recently quashed a family court's order allowing DNA profiling to ascertain a child's paternity on the grounds of the mother's alleged adultery. The court said that allegations of adultery alone cannot be the grounds to justify a paternity test unless a husband proves he had no access to his wife during the time of conception. The high court also criticised the Nagpur family court's decision to allow the man's application for his child to undergo a DNA test, saying it hadn't considered the best interests of the child. The case dates back to January 2013, when a woman, after over two years of marriage, left her matrimonial home while she was three months pregnant. Her husband then filed a petition for judicial separation before the Nagpur family court. Later, he withdrew that petition and filed another petition for divorce on the grounds of adultery, cruelty and desertion. The man questioned his wife's chastity and filed an application for conducting DNA profiling to ascertain the child's paternity. While the Nagpur court rejected the application in 2016, the husband filed another application during the evidence stage, seeking DNA profiling to decide the legitimacy of the child. The application was allowed, prompting the wife to approach the Bombay high court in 2022. The woman argued that conducting DNA profiling to decide a child's paternity is allowed only in exceptional cases. "A child born within 280 days of marriage between his mother and any man shall be conclusive proof of legitimacy of the child," her plea said. A single-judge bench of justice RM Joshi accepted the argument and struck down the family court's order. The judge said that unless the husband disputes that he is not the father of the child and makes out a specific case of having no access to the wife at the relevant time, the question of determining the paternity of the child does not arise. The court added that even in the case of an allegation of adultery against the wife, it can be proved by any other evidence than calling upon the child to undergo a paternity test. Criticising the family court's decision, the bench highlighted that it was absolutely obligatory for it to consider the best interests of the child. "When the parents are fighting against each other and the child becomes a tool, the court must become the custodian of the rights of the minor child. The court is undoubtedly required to consider pros and cons before calling upon minors to undergo a blood/DNA test," the bench said. "The family court, therefore, has clearly erred in facts as well as law while passing the order. Hence, the petitioner has made out a case, and the order, therefore, stands set aside," the bench concluded....