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 remains intact between a man and a woman, and they had access to each other, the husband will be recognized as the legal father of any child born to the woman, even if she asserts that the child was conceived through an extramarital affair. A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, the legitimacy of the child is presumed, and it is the duty of the party challenging legitimacy to prove a lack of 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 sufficient evidence exists 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 purported 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 “paternity and legitimacy” dispute reached the Supreme Court from Kerala after several rounds of litigation. The appeal was filed by the man accused of being the child’s biological father. The child’s mother claimed that the appellant 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, but she asserted the appellant was the biological father. After her divorce in 2006, she approached the Municipal Corporation of Cochin to have the appellant’s name listed as the child’s father, but her request was denied.
In 2007, she filed a suit in a munsiff court seeking a declaration that the appellant was the child’s father.
The munsiff court rejected her petition, and the Kerala High Court upheld this decision in 2011. Both courts concluded that the woman was still legally married at the time of the child’s birth 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 to be his biological father.
The family court ruled that the munsiff court lacked jurisdiction over the previous case and that its decision was not binding on the family court.
The court further noted that a maintenance claim concerns paternity rather than legitimacy, meaning the earlier rulings by 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, asserting that a child’s legitimacy does not impact their right to maintenance from their biological father. It also clarified that the presumption of legitimacy does not bar an investigation into the child’s true paternity.
This led the appellant, accused of being the child’s father, to challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court.
Arguments
Senior Advocate Romy Chacko, representing the appellant, argued that once legitimacy is established, the child can only seek maintenance from his ‘legitimate’ father, not from a third party whom he claims to be his biological father. He asserted that in such cases, the appellant should not be required to undergo a DNA test.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Shyam Padman, representing the respondent-son, argued that ‘paternity’ and ‘legitimacy’ are separate concepts. While legitimacy is based on legal presumption, paternity is determined through scientific means. Therefore, a civil suit concerning the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 does not impact the process of establishing paternity.
Padman further stated 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.
He also pointed out that, as maintenance matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court according to Explanation (f) of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the court is authorized to determine paternity when the issue arises in a maintenance claim.
Judgment
After considering the arguments, the Supreme Court reviewed the legal positions in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Malaysia.
The Court observed that all three jurisdictions firmly support 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 observed that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act establishes a strong presumption in favor of legitimacy.
The Supreme Court further noted that while Indian courts have allowed DNA testing, it has only been permitted in specific circumstances. In ordering such tests, the Bench emphasized the importance of considering the privacy and dignity of the individual accused of fathering the child.
“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, particularly by proving non-access. When the law sets out a specific procedure to achieve a particular objective, that procedure must be followed. If the evidence fails to rebut the presumption, the Court cannot circumvent the law to reach a desired conclusion by allowing an intrusive inquiry, such as a DNA test, the Supreme Court ruled.
Regarding civil court jurisdiction, the Supreme Court clarified that the jurisdiction granted to family courts is limited to matters arising from matrimonial causes, which primarily involve rights within a marriage. Since there was no dispute regarding the marital relationship in this case, 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 ruled that the respondent is presumed to be the legitimate son of his mother’s former husband.
