13. A test of “eminent need” is definitely required to be applied by the Court while considering application, if any, for DNA profiling but such a test would certainly depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case at hand, the plaintiff, who claims to be the daughter of the defendant, has filed suit for declaration that she be declared the daughter of the defendant. Once factum with regard to her being the daughter of the defendant has been specifically denied by the defendant in his written statement, the plaintiff is left with no other option but to pray for DNA profiling of the defendant. In Bhabani Prasad (supra), no doubt, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering the prayer for DNA profiling, courts are required to consider diverse aspects including presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act; pros and cons of such order and the test of ‘eminent need’ whether it is not possible for the court to reach the truth without the use of such test, but, in the case at hand, where the child (plaintiff) has admittedly achieved majority and wants to ascertain her paternity, prayer having been made by her for DNA profiling ought not to have been denied, while applying principle of “eminent need”. S.112 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that, “ the fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between the mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten .” But, in the case at hand, since the defendant has specifically denied the factum of his being the father of the plaintiff, as such, aforesaid presumption is not applicable to the facts of the present case, simply for the reason that the case as set out by the plaintiff is that she
