The Supreme Court has released a new explanation about DNA testing. The bench of Justices Vinod Sharma and Teknarayan Dhungana has given a detailed explanation and decided that DNA quality test should be considered as the most scientific method for detecting motherhood and paternity.

Earlier, on January 28, 2073, the Supreme Court explained that DNA is not the only evidence for kinship verification. At that time, the Supreme Court decided that the DNA test report cannot be considered as 100 percent true. In a case related to share, the full bench of Justices Deepkumar Karki, Kedar Prasad Chalise and Sharda Prasad Ghimire established a precedent that share can be given on the basis of other evidence and not just DNA test report. However, recently publishing the full text of a judgment on 16 November 2081, the Supreme Court has decided that DNA should be considered as authentic, real and scientific basis.

In the partial case of Pradeep KC against Salina Malla, the dispute reached the highest level after the district court decided to grant a part even without DNA. The Supreme Court has overturned the judgment of the District and High Courts by explaining paternity through DNA testing. The full text says, 'The traditional statement that mother is truth and father is faith in the context of the child has been confirmed by the development of modern science and technology to be based on unscientific and delusional society's occult beliefs. The most authentic, real and true scientific method of determining paternity through DNA quality testing is considered to be almost 100 percent authentic. During the

verdict, the Supreme Court has also mentioned the opinion of famous law professor DH Kay. The Supreme Court has quoted Kay's article published in Family Law Quarterly (1990) about the paternity potential of DNA, 'The biological father of any person can be identified based on the qualities or characteristics of two or more people by genetic testing using DNA testing technology, and with the development of this technology, now the determination of paternity is as definite as the determination of motherhood and the determination of paternity should not be based on guesswork. It can be expressed .' The Supreme Court, with the consent of the defendant Pradeep and the plaintiff Salina, has decided that the results of the sample collection and testing with the involvement of three experts should be considered reliable. The Supreme Court has said that Pradeep is not the biological father of Prasana, the daughter born to the plaintiff Salina, as the result of the test was the same twice. What was the

controversy?

Salina Malla of Baglung had a love marriage with Pradeep KC in 2058. In the year 2060, she gave birth to her daughter Prasana in the charity maternity home. But she claimed that she should get a portion saying that she is living separately as the marriage relationship is not good.

Pradeep claimed that he was already married to Jayanthi KC and had three children and Salina was not legally given the status of his wife and argued that he could not give the share. He demanded a DNA test saying that the born daughter was not his.

On July 17, 2072, the District Court of Kathmandu ordered the National Forensic Science Laboratory to be tested. In the report on October 24, 2072, it was mentioned that Pradeep is not the biological father of daughter Prasana. Dissatisfied with the report, Salina demanded a retrial in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ordered a re-examination on Chait 29, 2079 with at least three experts involved.