Author – Dishita Singh
College- Amity University Mumbai
TO THE POINT:
The case revolves around the point related to legitimacy and paternity where legitimacy of a child clearly means a child born out of a valid marriage where wife and husband have a legal relationship and automatically, they are been called as legal parents of a child. In a subsisting marriage, the mother claimed that biological father of her child was Ivan Rathinamwhich means an extramarital relationship and hence she filed suit seeking maintenance from him considering him as a biological father. Where appeal from lower to higher court saw the distinction between the term presumption of legitimacy and Paternity.
Issue here is which prevails more legitimacy of a child or paternity. The Constructive application of doctrine of Res Judicata and legal certainty, constitutional privacy over scientific assertions of biological truth it’s taken consideration because the competent court already dismissed the suit of maintenance by a mother claiming the other man as legal father but again the case of maintenance and distinct in decision of both court which the family court regarding the verdict given by civil court was not consider and main focus was on right of maintenance not the parameters which is required to determine how it will be applicable.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON:
Presumption of legitimacy which prevails under Section 112, IEA 1872 – which operates as protective shield for child ensuring that their legal status is not questioned. It provides the fact that within 280 days of valid marriage between mother and man shall be authentic proof that he is the legitimate child of both.
Res Judicata Section 11 CPC 1908 – A statutory bar preventing the re -proceeding of an issue which was already decided between the same parties.
Right to Privacy and Dignity – Article 21 of constitution ensures an individual personal liberty where the question was to undergo DNA test merely on the basis of allegation of adultery.
Balance of Interest- The judicial outlines the weighing child legitimate interest in maintaining the biological parentage against the alleged father’s right to dignity, privacy and protection from social stigma.
Denial of Maintenance claims Section 125, CRPC 1973 (now section 144 of BNSS 2023) – A children claim for maintenance from his father under this provision, only the legal father out of valid marriage. The case here is the confusion and claiming the other man as legal father even when there’s no valid marriage.
THE PROOFS:
Judiciary emphasized more on conclusive proof which is a rule of law which basically means it prevents the court from allowing any evidence that a fact is already established under the provisions which clearly meant child born during the period of valid marriage within timeline after it’s dissolution. This presumption is based on the maxim ” pater est quemnuptiae demonstrant ” meaning the father is whom the marriage indicates. The rationality behind this doctrine was to preserve the child rights and family integrity.
In India court made it more clear by giving importance to conclusive proof rather than mere presumption with the help of concept access and non-access.
Access refers to time period when husband and wife living together where it can established they both access during their valid marriage and conclusive proof will be the husband is father of the child.
Non access on the other hand is the period where husband and wife not living together and non-accessible to each other in valid marriage but court fully emphasized the burden of proof lies on the party to seek challenge the legitimacy of child but by only proving non access period with strong evidence and cogent reasons.
ABSTRACT
The whole matter of case is about the claiming of maintenance by mother for her child alleging that other man is the legal father but not the husband outlining the legitimacy of child in confusion but also a pressure to have a DNA test to prove the paternity and legitimacy of a child. Where the court ensures the DNA test is a scientific test and DNA evidence is highly probative, it cannot automatically override the conclusive presumption under Section 112 IEA 1872 where it has been claimed that it can be super accurate but also harm the child welfare. Also, the Privacy and Bodily Autonomy is the constitutional right of an individual where compelling the Ivan Rathinam to submit DNA test without any conclusive proof or any prima facie basis for non-access would be unjustified.
On maintenance claims the court justified grounds the maintenance can only claimed by the legal father not the other man who had no legal marriage with his mother and also no legal relationship with him. Hence the court quashed all the points and uphold the strong root of section 112 of IEA 1872 and right to privacy also the res judicata.
CASE LAWS:
1) Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik Vs Lata Nandlal Badwaik (AIR 2014 2 SCC 576): The case established regarding the DNA evidence cannot override the legal presumption of legitimacy and held if DNA test scientifically proves a husband is not biological father, then he cannot legally compelled to bear fatherhood or pay maintenance harming paternity and legitimacy of a child.
2)Dipanwita Roy Vs Ronobroto Roy (AIR 2015 1 SCC 365):The case established where Supreme Court can order a DNA test to find the child’s Paternity when it’s actually necessary to prove or disapprove a spouse’s claim of adultery but test is limited to evaluation and also when wife refuses to comply with order the court can draw adverse inference under Section 114 of IEA Act to decide divorce cases.
3) Goutam Kundu Vs State of West Bengal ( AIR 1993 3 SCC 418): The case describes authority of court cannot order DNA test as matter of course or inquiry but only when it’s most urgent and exceptional cases.
CONCLUSION:
The debate regarding the which is more important or priority, the paternity or the legitimacy of a child but court always prefers when there’s strict ground and final inference of legitimate child the paternity automatically follows it. Also, the maintenance claimed will always by the legal father and legal husband of mother. The DNA test might be scientifically accurate and close the doubt instantly but will always be used in exceptional cases determine the security of a child. Supreme court revoking the Res Judicata, encouraged the final judicial determination and denial of repeat proceeding of already settled question of status. Overall, the rulings strike balance between child’s legitimate interest in knowing his biological parentage and an individual’s right to privacy to protect intrusive paternity claims.
FAQ:
1) Does the core status of presumption of child legitimacy has changed in modern present period?
– It does have a balance approach now rather than rigid traditional approach of non access now in certain recent cases the court has allowed the DNA Test with certain different method preserving the presumption of legitimacy also but not that rigid also if the biological proves the paternity then legal husband was exempted from the maintenance but now court to ensure child welfare clearly states if he’s the one who raised the child for years till the proof then he can still give the maintenance and hold him for financially responsible for the best interest of child.
2) Is there any need to reform the factors governing the legitimacy of child?
– There’s a debate to align it with modern science more because due to Section 112 of IEA DNA test is mostly not considered for specific interest but it does not also considered the modern scientific evidence which might help in the case matter and also it can help because of social change in structure of family , previously it was traditional but now certain types has emerged like nuclear, live in relationship, void or voidable marriage etc . Also an illegitimate child is normally restricted to have financial security like ancestral property and only have the parents self property which needs to get an equal status that all child will have the same financial security.
3) What are challenges imposed by modern science and societal values regarding the paternity and legitimacy?
– It does have created a legal morality fight between clashed of presumption and biological reality. It does also considered the privacy rights and also right to know because it’s a matter of bodily autonomy which compel an individual to undergo DNA test , an infringe of his privacy rights but also on other side child rights to know the biological truth.
