Evidence Act, 1872 – s.112 – Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy – Respondent and his mother claimed the appellant to be the respondent’s biological father despite the fact that the respondent was born during the subsistence of his mother’s marriage to ‘RK’ – Respondent’s mother alleged that she had an extra-marital relationship with the appellant due to which he was begotten – Presumption of legitimacy, when not displaced, whether determines paternity: Held: : Legitimacy determines paternity u/s.112 until the presumption is successfully rebutted by proving ‘non-access’ – There exists a strong presumption that the husband is the father of the child borne by his wife during the subsistence of their marriage – 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’ – Admittedly, when the Respondent was begotten in 2001, his mother and Mr. ‘RK’ were married – They had been married since 1989 and neither had ever questioned the validity of the marriage – They were, admittedly living under the same roof from 1989 till 2003, when they decided to separate – Thus, the Respondent’s mother and Mr. ‘RK’ had access to each other throughout their marriage, as concurrently held by the courts at multiple stages of litigation – Even assuming that the Respondent’s mother had relations with the Appellant during her marriage and especially when the Respondent was begotten, this per se would not be sufficient to displace the presumption of legitimacy – This allegation only shows that there were simultaneous access with the Respondent’s mother, by the Appellant and Mr. ‘RK’ – However, an ‘additional’ access or ‘multiple’ access does not automatically negate the access between the spouses and prove non-access thereof – Consequently, there is a statutory mandate that the Respondent must be presumed to be the son of Mr. ‘RK’ – Plea that ‘paternity’ and ‘legitimacy’ are distinct/independent concepts, rejected – High Court’s view that ‘paternity’ can be determined independent of the concurrent findings regarding the legitimacy of the child, unsustainable – Impugned judgment of the High Court and the order of the Family Court, set aside – Respondent is presumed to be the legitimate son of Mr. ‘RK’. [Paras 28, 32, 33, 70] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.112 – Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy – “access”; “non-access” – Meaning: Held: Access and non-access u/s.112 do not require a party to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had or did not have sexual intercourse at the time the child could have been begotten – ‘Access’ merely refers to the possibility of an opportunity for marital relations – In cases where parties may be on non-speaking terms, engaging in extra-marital affairs, or residing in different houses in the same village, it does not necessarily preclude the possibility of the spouses having an opportunity to engage in marital relations – Non-access means the impossibility, not merely inability, of the spouses to have marital relations with each other – For a person to rebut the presumption of legitimacy, they must first assert ‘nonaccess’ substantiated by evidence. [Para 29] Constitution of India – Art.21 – Right to privacy and dignity – DNA Test – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.112 – Balancing of interests of the parties involved and the ‘eminent need’ for a DNA test – Respondent and his mother claimed the appellant to be the respondent’s biological father despite the fact that the respondent was born during his mother’s marriage to ‘RK’ – Respondent’s mother alleged that she had an extra-marital relationship with the appellant due to which the Respondent was begotten – Respondent sought DNA test of the Appellant to prove his paternity claiming that he had the right to know his true parentage – On facts, is there an ‘eminent need’ for a DNA test:
Held: No – While permitting an enquiry into a person’s paternity through a DNA test, the Court must be mindful of the collateral infringement of privacy – It must satisfy itself that the threshold for the three conditions mentioned in K.S. Puttaswamy case is satisfied – Failure of even one of these conditions is an unwarranted invasion of privacy and consequently, of life and personal liberty u/Art.21 – Furthermore, the law permits only a preliminary enquiry into a person’s private life by allowing the parties to bring evidence on record to prove non-access to dislodge the presumption of legitimacy – When the evidence submitted does not rebut this presumption, the court cannot subvert the law to attain a particular object, by permitting a roving enquiry into a person’s private life through a DNA test – Respondent is already declared to be the legitimate son of Mr. ‘RK’ – Despite concurrent findings of three courts as to the legitimacy of the Respondent, he and his mother continued to claim that the Appellant is his biological father – Appellant maintained a consistent stance across all fora that he never had sexual relations with the Respondent’s mother – An order necessitating a DNA test based on mere allegations of adultery would violate the Appellant’s right to dignity and privacy – On facts, there is ample evidence to presume legitimacy and there is absolutely no confusion as to whether the presumption would apply – The balance of interest does not support mandating a DNA test, as it will have a disproportionately adverse impact on the Appellant and the Respondent’s mother – High Court erred in holding that the Respondent’s legitimate interest to know his father outweighs the infringement of the Appellant’s right to privacy and dignity. [Paras 38, 42, 44, 45, 51]
DNA Test – ‘Eminent need’ for a DNA test – Balancing of interests of the parties involved; ‘eminent need’ for a DNA test– When can a DNA test be ordered – Factors to be considered: Held: There are two blockades to ordering a DNA test (i) insufficiency of evidence (ii) a positive finding regarding the balance of interests – Firstly, the courts must consider the existing evidence to assess the presumption of legitimacy and if that evidence is insufficient to come to a finding, only then should the court consider ordering a DNA test – Once the insufficiency of evidence is established, the court must consider whether ordering a DNA test is in the best interests of the parties involved and must ensure that it does not cause undue harm to the parties. [Para 47]
Family Courts Act, 1984 – ss.7, 8 – Whether the Family Court can entertain proceedings for a declaration of legitimacy without a claim on the marital relationship – Present case, if fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court: Held: No – Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of a person however, it cannot entertain any proceedings for a declaration of legitimacy without a claim on the marital relationship – The jurisdiction conferred upon the Family Court is for the settlement of issues arising out of matrimonial causes – A matrimonial cause relates to the rights of marriage between a husband and wife – However, in the present case, there was no claim regarding the marital relationship between the Respondent’s mother and Mr. ‘RK’, and instead, it pertains to an alleged extra-marital relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent’s mother – Thus, the present matter did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court and was thus, rightly entertained by the Munsiff Court and subsequently, the Sub-Judge Court. [Paras 56, 58] Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – s.151 – Family Courts Act, 1984 – s.7 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Respondent and his mother claimed the appellant to be the respondent’s biological father despite the fact that the respondent was born during his mother’s marriage to ‘RK’ – Respondent claimed maintenance from the Appellant – However, in view of the Munsiff Court order dismissing the Original Suit filed by respondent and his mother declaring the Appellant to be the Respondent’s father, Family Court closed the Maintenance Petition with the condition that it can be opened depending on the outcome of the civil proceedings – Whether the Family Court was entitled to reopen the Maintenance Petition by imposing a condition on itself:
Held: By virtue of s.151, CPC r/w s.7, Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the court’s process – Through its order dated 05.02.2010, the Family Court merely kept the Maintenance Petition in abeyance only to be opened depending on the outcome of the civil proceedings – This condition was necessary in the interest of justice to avoid multiple proceedings, and it did not cause any prejudice to the rights of the parties – Order dated 05.02.2010 is valid – However, as the condition imposed was not satisfied, the Maintenance Petition could not have been revived or reopened – Thus, the Family Court erred in reviving the Maintenance Petition vide its order dated 09.11.2015 – Proceedings before the Family Court quashed. [Paras 59, 63]
Doctrine of res judicata – Issue of legitimacy was decided in favour of the Appellant vide High Court’s order in 2011 which was not challenged and had thus, attained finality – Second round of litigation initiated by the Respondent, if was barred by res judicata:
Held: Yes – Vide High Court’s order in 2011, the issue of legitimacy was conclusively decided in favour of the Appellant – This order was never challenged and attained finality – As the lis stood adjudicated, no court of law, except in appeal, could have proceeded to decide the same issue arising between the same parties, regardless of whether it was incidental to other proceedings – The aspects of legitimacy and its effects on maintenance issues are interdependent – Thus, the Family Court in 2015 could not have revived the Maintenance Petition under the guise that the issue of maintenance would be entirely divorced from an analysis of the issue of legitimacy – Permitting a second round of litigation when the issue was already settled inter partes is a grave misuse of judicial time and resources – Family Court’s order dated 09.11.2015, reviving the Maintenance Petition, was ex-facie in contravention with the principles of res judicata. [Paras 66-68] DNA Test – Effects of, on all the stakeholders involved, especially women – Discussed.
Presumption of ‘Paternity’; ‘Legitimacy’ – Law in foreign jurisdictions vis à vis India – Discussed.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.