JAIPUR — In a legal development that redefines the intersection of forensic science and family law, the Rajasthan High Court has issued a definitive order in the case of Bhauri Devi v. Bila Devi & Ors. On February 4, 2026, Justice Bipin Gupta mandated a DNA test to settle a high-stakes property dispute where a 93-year-old mother has sensationally disowned her 70-year-old daughter.
Describing the scenario as a “rarest of rare” occurrence, the High Court’s ruling addresses a unique legal vacuum where the law traditionally presumes paternity but has few safeguards for a mother’s denial of maternity.
The Legal Crux: From Ancestral Land to Biological Identity
The litigation centers on a prime parcel of agricultural land in Jaipur, part of which was acquired by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation (RIICO). The petitioner, Bhauri Devi, asserts her rights as a legal heir to the estate of her late father, Shri Badri.
- The Contested Will: The legal battle was ignited when Bhauri Devi challenged a 2014 will that purportedly left the entire property to one Mahendra Kumar.
- The Identity Defense: In a strategic move to block the inheritance claim, Bhauri’s mother, Bila Devi, alleged that Bhauri was not born from her womb, thereby questioning her status as a legal “child” of the family.
- Trial Court’s Initial Refusal: A lower civil court had previously dismissed the plea for a DNA test, citing the elderly mother’s Right to Privacy under Article 21.
High Court’s Stance: Truth Over Privacy
Justice Bipin Gupta, in his detailed order, overturned the trial court’s decision, emphasizing that when a fundamental right to inheritance is at stake, the court’s primary duty is the “ascertainment of truth.”
“In the modern, materialistic world, where parenthood can be easily denied for property gains, scientific advancements like DNA testing are the only conclusive tools left for the vulnerable to prove their lineage,” the Court observed.
Critical Legal Distinctions:
- Maternity vs. Paternity: The Court noted that while Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) deals heavily with the presumption of paternity within a marriage, it remains silent on a mother’s denial of her own offspring.
- The Mandate: The High Court has directed the 93-year-old respondent to provide a DNA sample.
- The “Adverse Inference” Warning: In a stern warning, the Court clarified that while it cannot physically force a person to undergo the test, a refusal will lead the Court to draw an adverse inference—meaning it will legally assume that Bhauri Devi is indeed the biological daughter.
Case Fact Sheet: Bhauri Devi v. Bila Devi
| Feature | Details |
| Case Title | Bhauri Devi v. Bila Devi & Ors. |
| Presiding Judge | Justice Bipin Gupta, Rajasthan High Court |
| Petitioner’s Age | 70 Years |
| Respondent’s Age | 93 Years |
| Primary Dispute | Ancestral Property and RIICO Plot Allotments |
| Scientific Mandate | DNA Profiling under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC |
| Governing Law | Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 |
