Dismissed¶¶29

Sumitra v. Inder Singh

Delhi HC7 May 2025MAT.APP.(F.C.)/172/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DNA test consent in matrimonial dispute; Delhi High Court dismisses Sumitra's MAT.APP.(F.C.) 172/2025 appeal against Family Court (Saket) orders dated 30.11.2024 and 18.01.2025 in HMA No.160/2019 (Inder Singh v. Sumitra) directing a DNA Test of the parties' son at Trauma Centre, AIIMS and taking the report on record; appeal untenable because appellant had herself earlier consented (order dated 11.10.2023 no-objection; reply para 7 consent to government-lab test) and samples were given voluntarily by appellant and son — facts not disputed; respondent's admissions/parentage question expressly left to the Family Court; judges Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar; decision 07.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

In the peculiar facts of the present case, the Court found no merit in the appeal. ¶¶22

Sumitra Vs Inder Singh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the Impugned Orders dated 30.11.2024 and 18.01.2025 (direction of the DNA Test and taking of its report on record) are liable to be set aside, the appellant contending that the DNA Test could not have been directed in view of the respondent's various admissions on the parentage of the child. +1 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

In the peculiar facts of the present case, the Court found no merit in the appeal.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

Since the appellant had herself earlier given no objection to a DNA Test (recorded in the Family Court order dated 11.10.2023), consented to it in paragraph 7 of her reply (testing at a government lab), and the samples were given voluntarily by her and the son — facts described as not disputed — the Court saw no reason to interfere with the Impugned Orders.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

The Court declined to express any opinion on the question of the respondent's admissions regarding the parentage of the child, expressly leaving it to be considered by the learned Family Court on hearing the parties.obiter¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MATTER: Sumitra (appellant) v. Inder Singh (respondent), MAT.APP.(F.C.) 172/2025, High Court of Delhi (Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar JJ.), decided 07.05.2025. The appeal challenged Orders dated 30.11.2024 and 18.01.2025 of the learned Family Court-02, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi, passed in HMA No.160/2019 ('Inder Singh v. Sumitra') — the first directing the parties and their son to appear before the Trauma Centre, AIIMS on 10.12.2024 for a DNA Test, the second taking the test report on record. HELD: despite the appellant's contention that the DNA Test could not have been directed in view of the respondent's various admissions on the child's parentage, the appeal lacked merit — respondent's counsel showed an earlier Family Court order dated 11.10.2023 recording the appellant's own no-objection to the test, paragraph 7 of her reply consenting to testing at a government lab, and voluntary giving of samples by her and the son, facts 'not disputed'; hence no reason to interfere with the Impugned Orders. The question of the respondent's admissions was expressly left for the learned Family Court, on which the Court gave no opinion. Appeal and pending application (CM APPL. 27598/2025) dismissed; delay in filing condoned (CM APPL. 27597/2025); exemption allowed (CM APPL. 27599/2025).

¶1

$~104

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision:07.05.2025

¶4

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 172/2025 SUMITRA .....Appellant Through: Mr.V.K. Sharma, Mr.R.A. Sharma, Advs.

¶5

versus INDER SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr.Anurag Pratap, Mr.Rishiraj, Advs. with respondent with sons and daughter.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

¶8

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶9

CM APPL. 27599/2025 (Exemption)

¶10

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶11

CM APPL. 27597/2025

¶12

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.

¶13

The application stands disposed of.

¶14

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 172/2025 & CM APPL. 27598/2025

¶15

This appeal has been filed, challenging the Orders dated 30.11.2024 and 18.01.2025 passed by the learned Family Court-02, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Family Court’) in HMA No.160/2019 titled as Inder Singh v.

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 172/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 3.05.2025 18:57:45

¶19

Sumitra.

¶20

By the Impugned Order dated 30.11.2024, the learned Family Court had directed the parties herein and their son to appear before the Trauma Centre, AIIMS on 10.12.2024 for a DNA Test to be conducted.

¶21

By the subsequent Impugned Order dated 18.01.2025, the learned Family Court took on record the report of the said test received from the Trauma Centre, AIIMS. 7. It is the case of the appellant that the Impugned Orders are liable to be set aside inasmuch as the DNA Test could not have been directed in view of various admissions of the respondent on the parentage of the child.

¶22

In the peculiar facts of the present case, however, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice of this appeal, has drawn our attention to an earlier Order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, wherein a plea of the appellant herself giving her no objection to a DNA Test being conducted has been recorded. He also draws our attention to the paragraph 7 of the reply filed by the appellant to an application of the respondent praying for a DNA Test to be conducted on the son, wherein, again the appellant has given her consent for the DNA Test to be conducted from a government lab. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the samples for the DNA Test were also given voluntarily, not only by the appellant but also by the son.

¶23

Given the above facts, which are not disputed, we do not find

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 172/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 3.05.2025 18:57:45

¶27

any reason to interfere with the Impugned Orders.

¶28

As far as the question of admission of the respondent is concerned, it would be a matter to be considered by the learned Family Court on hearing the parties. We need not give any opinion on the same in the present appeal.

¶29