In a landmark ruling concerning paternity and legitimacy, the Supreme Court today addressed the complex balance between an individual’s right to confirm their biological parentage and another person’s right to privacy in refusing a DNA test.
The case involved a 23-year-old man who sought to prove his paternity through a DNA test, claiming that he was born from his mother’s extramarital affair. He argued that he had suffered from various health issues, undergone multiple surgeries, and faced financial hardship, and wanted to establish his biological father’s identity in order to seek maintenance from him. The case dates back over two decades, and the court’s verdict today dealt with questions of both biological paternity and legal legitimacy.
The Case Background
The man’s mother married in 1989 and had a daughter in 1991. In 2001, she gave birth to the son in question, but she separated from her husband in 2003 and finalized their divorce in 2006. In an effort to amend her son’s birth records, the mother approached the Cochin Municipal Corporation, claiming that her son was the product of an extramarital affair. However, authorities refused to alter the records without a court order, leading to a prolonged legal battle.
In 2007, the court ordered a DNA test for the alleged biological father. However, the man challenged this order in 2008, and the Kerala High Court ruled that a paternity test could only be mandated if the parties could demonstrate that the spouses had no access to one another. The high court cited Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which presumes that a child born during a valid marriage or within 280 days after the marriage ends is the legitimate child of the husband.
Subsequent rulings continued to complicate the matter. A lower court concluded there was no need for a DNA test, given that a valid marriage had existed at the time the child was born.
The Fight for Maintenance
In 2015, the now 14-year-old son petitioned a family court to revive an earlier petition for maintenance. He stated that he was suffering from significant health problems, requiring surgeries his mother could not afford, and he was not receiving any maintenance from his legal father for his medical or educational expenses. The court agreed to revive the maintenance petition, but the alleged biological father challenged it in the high court.
In 2018, the high court ruled in favor of the son, stating that the legitimacy of the birth was irrelevant when determining the child’s right to maintenance from the biological father. The court also affirmed that the presumption of legitimacy could not prevent an inquiry into the true paternity of the child. The alleged biological father then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
The Arguments and Legal Issues
Romy Chacko, representing the alleged biological father, argued that the son had not proven the lack of access between his mother and her husband at the time of his birth, thus establishing the child as the legitimate offspring of the marriage. Therefore, the son could not claim maintenance from a third party. Chacko also contended that his client should not be compelled to undergo a DNA test.
In contrast, the son’s counsel, Shyam Padman, asserted that paternity and legitimacy were separate legal concepts. He emphasized that while legitimacy concerns the legal status of a child, paternity is crucial when determining maintenance obligations. Padman argued that maintenance could be claimed from a biological father, even if the child is considered illegitimate.
This case highlights the ongoing tension between the legal presumption of legitimacy and the rights of children to seek support from their biological parents, especially in cases where paternity is disputed.
