The Court also held that when there is evidence to presume legitimacy, courts cannot order a DNA test to determine paternity.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that if a marriage is ongoing between a man and a woman and they had access to each other, the husband would be considered the legal father of the child born to the woman, even if she asserts that the child resulted from an adulterous relationship with another man.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act presumes the child’s legitimacy, placing the burden of proof on the party claiming illegitimacy to establish non-access between the spouses.
“The language of the provision makes it abundantly clear that there exists a strong presumption that the husband is the father of the child borne by his wife during the subsistence of their marriage. This section provides that conclusive proof of legitimacy is equivalent to paternity. The object of this principle is to prevent any unwarranted enquiry into the parentage of a child. Since the presumption is in favour of legitimacy, the burden is cast upon the person who asserts ‘illegitimacy’ to prove it only through ‘non-access,” the Court held.
As a result, when there is sufficient evidence to presume legitimacy, courts cannot mandate a DNA test to establish paternity, as it would violate the privacy of the man whom the wife has allegedly identified as the child’s father.
The Court emphasized that compelling the alleged paramour to undergo a DNA test would infringe upon his privacy and dignity.
“Forcefully undergoing a DNA test would subject an individual’s private life to scrutiny from the outside world. That scrutiny, particularly when concerning matters of infidelity, can be harsh and can eviscerate a person’s reputation and standing in society. It can irreversibly affect a person’s social and professional life, along with his mental health. On account of this, he has the right to undertake certain actions to protect his dignity and privacy, including refusing to undergo a DNA test,” the judgment stated.
Background
The dispute over “paternity and legitimacy” reached the Supreme Court from Kerala after multiple rounds of litigation.
The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by the man accused of being the child’s biological father.
The child’s mother alleged that the appellant had fathered the child while she was still married to another man.
At the time of the child’s birth in 2001, the woman was legally married to someone else. However, she claimed that the appellant was the child’s biological father.
After obtaining a divorce in 2006, she approached the Municipal Corporation of Cochin, requesting them to record the appellant’s name as the child’s father, but the authorities declined her request.
In 2007, the woman filed a suit in a munsiff court seeking a declaration that the appellant was the child’s father.
The munsiff court dismissed her plea, a decision later upheld by the Kerala High Court in 2011. Both courts ruled that a valid marriage existed between the woman and her husband at the relevant time and declined to order a DNA test.
In 2015, the woman’s son approached the family court, seeking maintenance from the appellant, whom he claimed was his biological father.
The family court ruled that the munsiff court lacked jurisdiction over the earlier suit and that its decision was not binding on the family court.
It further held that a maintenance claim concerns paternity rather than legitimacy, meaning the previous rulings of the munsiff court and Kerala High Court would not prevent the family court from determining paternity through a DNA test.
The Kerala High Court upheld the family court’s decision, stating that a child’s legitimacy is irrelevant when determining their right to maintenance from their biological father. It also clarified that the presumption of legitimacy does not bar an inquiry into a child’s true paternity.
This led the appellant, accused of fathering the child, to challenge the ruling before the Supreme Court.
Arguments
Senior Advocate Romy Chacko, representing the appellant, contended that once legitimacy is established, the child can seek maintenance only from his ‘legitimate’ father, not from a third party whom he claims to be his biological father. Therefore, under such circumstances, the appellant could not be compelled to undergo a DNA test.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Shyam Padman, appearing for the respondent-son, argued that ‘paternity’ and ‘legitimacy’ are separate concepts. While legitimacy is based on legal presumption, paternity is a scientific determination. As a result, a civil suit regarding the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 would not impact the process of establishing paternity.
He further asserted that it is in the child’s best interest for the appellant to undergo a DNA test, as the child has the right to know his true parentage and claim the associated rights.
Padman also argued that since maintenance matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, as per Explanation (f) of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the court is also empowered to determine paternity when the issue arises in the context of a maintenance claim.
Judgment
After considering the arguments, the Supreme Court analyzed legal positions in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Malaysia.
The Court observed that all three jurisdictions strongly favor the presumption of a child’s legitimacy.
The courts (in those countries) can order a DNA test only after cogent and reliable evidence is led to prove illegitimacy and if the test is in the ‘best interests’ of the child,” the Supreme Court noted.
Regarding India, the Court stated that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act establishes a strong presumption in favor of legitimacy.
The apex court further noted that while Indian courts have permitted DNA testing, it has been allowed only in limited circumstances.
When directing such tests, the Bench emphasized that the privacy and dignity of the individual accused of fathering the child must also be taken into account.
“Usually in cases concerning legitimacy, it is the child’s dignity and privacy that have to be protected, as they primarily come under the line of fire. Though in this instance, the child is a major and is voluntarily submitting himself to this test, he is not the only stakeholder bearing personal interest in the results, whatever they may be. The effects of social stigma surrounding an illegitimate child make their way into the parents’ lives as there may be undue scrutiny owing to the alleged infidelity. It is in this backdrop that the Appellant’s right to privacy and dignity have to be considered,” the judgment said.
The law allows only a preliminary inquiry into an individual’s private life by permitting the parties to present evidence to challenge the presumption of legitimacy, specifically by proving non-access. When the law outlines a specific procedure to achieve a particular objective, that procedure must be followed. If the evidence presented fails to rebut the presumption, the court cannot override the law to reach a particular outcome by allowing an intrusive inquiry, such as a DNA test, the Supreme Court ruled.
Regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court, the Supreme Court clarified that the jurisdiction granted to family courts pertains to resolving matters arising from matrimonial causes, which primarily involve the rights within a marriage. In this case, as there was no dispute concerning the marital relationship, the jurisdiction of the munsiff court was not excluded.
“This matter, therefore, cannot be construed to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court and was thus, rightly entertained by the munsiff court and subsequently, the sub-judge,” the Court stated.
Based on the above findings, the Court overturned the family court’s order and dismissed the maintenance proceedings before the family court.
It also concluded that the respondent is presumed to be the legitimate son of his mother’s former husband.