SUNIL SINGH vs ANJU GUPTA SINGH — AO /25/2026
Case under Family Courts Act, 1984 (act No. 66 of 1984) Section 19. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 02nd April 2026.
CNR: UKHC010008692026
Filing Number
AO /502/2026
Filing Date
10-01-2026
Registration No
AO /25/2026
Registration Date
10-01-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
APPEAL ( 3 )
Sub-Category
FAMILY COURT ACT ( 10 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SUNIL SINGH
Adv. SHASHI KANT SHANDILYA,VISHWAKETU VAIDYA,VISHWAKETU VAIDYA, ,VISHWAKETU VAIDYA
Respondent(s)
ANJU GUPTA SINGH
HEMANT JOSHI
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
FRESH CASES AS DEFECTIVE -236
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-02-2026 | FRESH CASES AS DEFECTIVE -236 | |
| 02-04-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
Orders
Summary The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the appellant's appeal against the Family Court's rejection of his DNA examination request. The court held that DNA testing cannot be ordered routinely and requires exceptional circumstances with strong prima facie evidence of non-access between spouses. Since the appellant failed to specifically plead or establish non-access, the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act remained intact, and permitting DNA examination would constitute an unwarranted intrusion into the child's privacy and dignity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the appellant's appeal against the Family Court's rejection of his DNA examination request. The court held that DNA testing cannot be ordered routinely and requires exceptional circumstances with strong prima facie evidence of non-access between spouses. Since the appellant failed to specifically plead or establish non-access, the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act remained intact, and permitting DNA examination would constitute an unwarranted intrusion into the child's privacy and dignity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts