A father by conduct cannot later deny paternity:  Kerala High Court enforces equitable estoppel in paternity dispute.

The Kerala High Court upheld a Family Court order rejecting an application for a DNA test to determine the paternity of a minor child, Rosemariya. The court emphasized the doctrine of equitable estoppel, holding that once a man acknowledges and acts as a child’s father, he cannot subsequently challenge paternity.

The petitioner, A.J. Stephen, had been earlier acquitted in a rape case involving the mother of the minor child, Rosemariya. Despite the acquittal, Stephen had entered into an agreement admitting paternity and agreeing to pay maintenance and compensation for the child. Subsequently, Stephen challenged the paternity, filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a DNA test.

Acknowledgment of Paternity and Equitable Estoppel: The High Court, in its judgment, highlighted the petitioner’s prior conduct and agreements, which included acknowledging the paternity of Rosemariya and agreeing to financial obligations. The court underscored that the petitioner was estopped from denying paternity due to his previous acknowledgment and the agreement executed with the child’s mother.

Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan, delivering the judgment, referred to the equitable estoppel doctrine applied in paternity cases. The court drew parallels with precedents from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which upheld that a man who has held out a child as his own is precluded from later denying paternity. The judgment also cited Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, emphasizing the child’s right to identity and familial stability.

Stability and Security for the Child: The court underscored the paramount importance of ensuring stability and security for the child, rejecting the petitioner’s late challenge to paternity as impermissible. The bench noted that the petitioner’s conduct, including his refusal to undergo a DNA test during previous maintenance proceedings and his acceptance of paternity in a legal agreement, disqualified him from contesting paternity.

Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan remarked, “The petitioner’s acknowledgment and acceptance of paternity through conduct and agreements cannot be negated by a subsequent denial. The doctrine of equitable estoppel protects the child’s right to familial identity and stability.”

The judgment further stated, “Public policy considerations regarding the child’s right to identity are of utmost importance. The preservation of familial identity, as recognized by law and international conventions, must be upheld.”

The Kerala High Court’s dismissal of A.J. Stephen’s petition reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding equitable estoppel in paternity disputes. By affirming the Family Court’s decision, the judgment sends a strong message about the importance of consistent conduct and legal agreements in determining paternity. This landmark decision is expected to have significant implications for future paternity disputes, emphasizing the need for stability and security in the child’s familial relationships.

Date of Decision: 23^rd May 2024

A.J. Stephen vs. Rosemariya