Paternity Cannot Be Challenged If Legitimacy is Presumed Under Section 112 of Evidence Act; DNA Test Cannot Be Ordered Without Prima Facie Case: Supreme Court

“Mere Allegations of Extramarital Relationship Do Not Displace the Presumption of Legitimacy” - Supreme Court ruled that a child born within a valid marriage is conclusively presumed to be legitimate under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, unless non-access between spouses is proved. The Court held that paternity cannot be determined independently of legitimacy when the law presumes legitimacy and that a DNA test cannot be ordered unless a strong prima facie case of non-access is made out.

Setting aside the Kerala High Court’s order, the Court ruled, "Once legitimacy is conclusively presumed, paternity is not open for challenge. A maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC cannot be used as a tool to reopen settled issues of legitimacy." The Court also held that the principle of res judicata applies, barring a second round of litigation on an issue that had already been conclusively decided.

The case originated from a long-standing paternity dispute. Milan Joseph, the respondent, was born in 2001 to Mrs. X, who was legally married to Mr. Raju Kurian. At birth, Mr. Kurian was recorded as the father in the Cochin Municipal Birth Register. However, the respondent and his mother later claimed that Ivan Rathinam, the appellant, was his biological father due to an alleged extramarital relationship.

In 2007, the respondent and his mother filed a civil suit before the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, seeking a declaration that Ivan Rathinam was his biological father and an order to change the father’s name in the birth records. They also filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Alappuzha, claiming that Rathinam was liable to pay maintenance.

The Munsiff Court dismissed the civil suit in 2009, holding that Milan Joseph was conclusively presumed to be the legitimate son of Mr. Raju Kurian under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. The Court reasoned that since the mother and Mr. Kurian cohabited at the time of conception, the presumption of legitimacy was conclusive and could not be rebutted without proof of non-access. This decision was upheld by the III Additional Sub-Judge, Ernakulam in 2011 and later by the Kerala High Court. Following this, the Family Court closed the maintenance petition in 2010, imposing a condition that it could only be revived if an appeal was decided in favor of the respondent.

In 2015, the respondent reopened the maintenance petition, claiming that legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act did not preclude an independent determination of biological paternity for maintenance purposes. The Family Court revived the petition, ruling that only the Family Court had jurisdiction to determine paternity. The Kerala High Court, in 2018, upheld the Family Court’s decision, stating that paternity and legitimacy were distinct concepts and that a biological father could be liable for maintenance even if the child was born within a valid marriage.

Ivan Rathinam challenged this before the Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor and set aside the Family Court and High Court’s decisions.

“Paternity Cannot Be Determined Independently When the Law Presumes Legitimacy” – Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 112 of the Evidence Act creates a strong presumption that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate unless non-access is proved. The Court categorically rejected the High Court’s view that legitimacy and paternity are distinct legal concepts, stating:

“Paternity cannot be determined independently of legitimacy when the law presumes legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. The presumption of legitimacy determines paternity unless rebutted by strong evidence of non-access.”

The Court emphasized that mere allegations of an extramarital affair or suspicions of adultery are insufficient to rebut the presumption of legitimacy. It stated, “An ‘additional’ access or ‘multiple’ access does not negate the access between spouses. The fact that a woman may have had a relationship outside marriage does not, by itself, displace the presumption of legitimacy.”

Referring to Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B. (1993), the Court reiterated that the law aims to prevent unnecessary challenges to a child's legitimacy and that the presumption under Section 112 is conclusive unless non-access is proven beyond doubt.

DNA Test Cannot Be Ordered Without a Strong Prima Facie Case of Non-Access

The respondent sought a DNA test to determine his biological father. The Supreme Court refused, observing that DNA testing cannot be used as a tool for speculative inquiries. It held:

“DNA testing cannot be ordered unless a strong prima facie case of non-access is made out. Mere allegations of adultery do not justify ordering a DNA test, as it would violate the right to privacy and dignity of the individuals involved.”

The Court referred to its previous rulings in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women (2010) and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) (Privacy Judgment), emphasizing that forcing someone to undergo a DNA test infringes upon their right to privacy and dignity.

Family Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Reopen Maintenance Petition

The Supreme Court also ruled that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to reopen the maintenance petition when legitimacy was conclusively presumed. It stated:

“When legitimacy is conclusively presumed, a Family Court cannot reopen the question of paternity independently. The Munsiff Court and Sub-Judge Court had valid jurisdiction over legitimacy, and their decision attained finality.”

It held that the Family Court erred in reviving the maintenance petition and ruled that once a final decision on legitimacy had been reached, a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC could not be used to relitigate the same issue.

Applying the doctrine of res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC, the Court ruled that: “The issue of legitimacy was conclusively decided in 2011. The respondent cannot reopen litigation under the guise of maintenance when the core issue—paternity—has already been settled.”

It warned that allowing such claims would open floodgates for endless litigation, stating: “Once a matter is settled, it must not be reopened, or else the courts will be burdened with repetitive litigation that serves no purpose but to harass parties.”

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the maintenance petition, and set aside the High Court and Family Court’s orders, holding:

"The respondent remains presumed to be the legitimate son of Mr. Raju Kurian. The appellant, Ivan Rathinam, has no legal obligation to provide maintenance."

The Court ruled that:

• Legitimacy determines paternity unless non-access is proved.

• Mere allegations of an extramarital relationship do not displace the presumption of legitimacy.

• A DNA test cannot be ordered without prima facie evidence of non-access.

• The Family Court had no jurisdiction to determine paternity independently.

• The maintenance petition was barred by res judicata and could not be reopened.

Date of decision:  January 28, 2025