LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has refused to order an immediate DNA test in a paternity suit, ruling that the welfare of the minor and the current evidentiary stage of the case outweigh the parents` joint consent for genetic testing.

Justice Ahsan Raza Kazmi dismissed a civil revision petition filed by a man seeking a declaration that he is not the biological father of a minor girl.

The petitioner, Malik Hamid Raza, urged the court to over-turn two lower court decisions dated April 17 and May 21, 2025 which had declined his application for DNA analysis.

Raza had approached a family court last year, contesting paternityandseekingadeclaration of non-legitimacy.

He requested a DNA test of the child, and the mother did not oppose the plea; in fact, she formally recorded her consent.

However, the trial judge termed the request `premature, noting that no evidence had yet been recorded. The appellate court dismissed the subsequent appeal for the same reason.

The petitioner then invoked the High Court`s revisional jurisdiction, arguing that the two orders were illegal and contrary to natural justice.In his detailed judgment, Justice Kazmi held that courts have a `proactive and protective role` when a minor is unable to consent. He noted that even parental agreement can be overridden if it risks emotional or psychological harm.

`Even where both parents consent, the court must still ask whether a DNA test is truly in the child`s best interest,` the judge wrote, describing such orders as serious judicial acts not to be undertaken lightly or on mere request. He stated that the role of the courts is not only to resolve legal disputes but also to protect human dignity, particularly when the rights of a minor are involved.

Justice Kazmi explained that when scientific tools like DNA testing are used to resolve ques-tions of paternity, the courts must act with caution.

He cited repeated Supreme Court rulings which emphasize that DNA testing in civil matters should not be ordered without necessity and a complete evidentiary context.

`Any deviation would conflict with established jurisprudence,` the judge noted.

He stressed that it is not the availability of technology or the consent of parties that justifies such testing, but whether the purpose truly serves the ends of justice. The judge observed that while DNA tests may be valuable, they must not come at the cost of a child`s mental and emotional well-being.

`Furthermore, it is now wellsettled that DNA evidence is notconclusive; rather, it serves as corroborative evidence,` he added.

Justice Kazmi noted that a child born during wedlock is conclusively presumed legitimate unless strong rebuttalis provided.

He held that the lower courts had applied the correct test by refusing to dislodge that presumption at this preliminary stage.

He concluded that the trial and appellate courts had exercised lawful discretion, and the High Court found `no perversity or illegality` warranting intervention.

Justice Kazmi held that the lower courts had not shut the door on the DNA test altogether, but had rightly deferred the question until the trial court is equipped with a complete evidentiary record.