In a crucial verdict dealing with paternity and the notion of legitimacy, the Supreme Court today balanced an individual’s right to know his biological father with another’s unwillingness to agree to such a test on the grounds of privacy.
The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with a two-decades-old case in which a 23-year-old man said his birth was the result of his mother’s extramarital affair and wanted his paternity proved through a DNA test. He said he was facing multiple health issues and had undergone several surgeries. He and his mother were struggling to afford the treatment costs and he wanted to prove his paternity to claim maintenance from his biological father.
What Is The Case
According to the order, the 23-year-old’s mother married in 1989 and had a daughter in 1991. The son was born in 2001 and his mother separated from her husband in 2003. They were granted divorce in 2006. Soon after, the woman approached the Cochin Municipal Corporation to change the name of her son’s father in the birth records. The woman allegedly told the authorities that she was in an extramarital relationship and the child was born out of the affair. When the authorities said they could not change birth records without a court order, the woman and her son started a long-drawn legal fight. In 2007, the court ordered the alleged biological father to undergo a DNA test. This man challenged the order in the high court in 2008 and got relief. The high court said that a paternity test can be ordered only if the parties can prove non-access between the spouses. The court cited Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which establishes that a child born during a valid marriage or within 280 days after the marriage ends is the husband’s legitimate child.
Subsequent rulings brought more setbacks for the mother and the son. A lower court held that there was no need to refer the parties to a DNA test as a valid marriage subsisted between the mother and her husband when the child was born.
A Plea For Maintenance
In 2015, the son, then 14, approached a family court to revive an earlier maintenance petition. He said he was suffering from various health issues and had undergone several surgeries, which he and his mother were unable to afford. He also said he was not receiving any maintenance from his legal father for his medical or educational expenses. The court revived the maintenance petition. The alleged biological father challenged this in the high court.
In 2018, the high court ruled in the favour of the son. It said the legitimacy of birth was irrelevant when considering the right of the child to receive maintenance from their biological father. The court also held that the presumption of legitimacy does not prevent an inquiry into the true paternity of a child. The alleged biological father then challenged this order in the Supreme Court.
The Arguments And The Issues
Romy Chacko, appearing for alleged biological father, said the son had failed to prove non-access between his mother and her husband when he was born, so there is conclusive proof that he is the legitimate child from their marriage. So he cannot claim maintenance from a “third party”. Mr Chacko also said his client cannot be ordered to get a DNA test.
The son’s counsel Shyam Padman argued that ‘paternity’ and ‘legitimacy’ are distinct concepts. “Paternity, as a concept, is intrinsically connected with maintenance; and maintenance can be claimed from the biological father even when the child is illegitimate.”
The Question of Legitimacy
The order says that it is a fact that when the son was born, his mother was married to her husband. “In fact, 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.” The court said it is obvious that the mother and her husband had access to each other throughout their marriage.”
The court held that even if it assumes that the mother had an extramarital relationship and that led to his birth, “it would not be sufficient to displace the presumption of legitimacy”. “The only thing that such an allegation sheds light on is the fact that there seems to have been simultaneous access with the Respondent’s mother, by the Appellant and (the husband). What, however, needs to be clarified is that an ‘additional’ access or ‘multiple’ access does not automatically negate the access between the spouses and prove non-access thereof,” the court said, adding that there is a statutory mandate that the 23-year-old must be presumed to be the son of his legal father.
The Right To Privacy Angle
The bench said that there is a need to balance the son’s right to know his true parentage with the right to privacy of the man he claims is his father. “On one hand, courts must protect the parties’ rights to privacy and dignity by evaluating whether the social stigma from one of them being declared ‘illegitimate’ would cause them disproportionate harm. On the other hand, courts must assess the child’s legitimate interest in knowing his biological father and whether there is an eminent need for a DNA test,” the order says.
The court said that forcefully undergoing a DNA test would subject an individual’s private life to scrutiny from the outside world. “That scrutiny, particularly when concerning matters of infidelity, can be harsh and can eviscerate a person’s reputation and standing in society. It can irreversibly affect a person’s social and professional life, along with his mental health. On account of this, he has the right to undertake certain actions to protect his dignity and privacy, including refusing to undergo a DNA test.”
The Woman’s Reputation Aspect
The court noted that in this case, the child’s mother is actively associated with the litigation, but one can imagine the repercussions in cases where a child seeks a declaration of paternity while disregarding the sentiments of his mother. “The conferment of such a right can lead to its potential misuse against vulnerable women. They would be put to trial in a court of law and the court of public opinion, causing them significant mental distress, among other issues. It is in this sphere that their right to dignity and privacy deserve special consideration.”
“It must be noted that 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 law provides for a mode to attain a particular object, that mode must be satisfied. 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, such as through a DNA test,” the order says.
The Directions
The bench noted that the convoluted case spanning over two decades, has taken its toll on the parties involved and must be closed for all intents and purposes. The court ruled that legitimacy determines paternity under Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, until the presumption is rebutted by proving ‘non-access’.
The court said any claim by the 23-year-old about his perceived relationship with the man he claims is his father stands negated. The man, the court said, is presumed to be the legitimate son of his mother’s former husband and his legal father.
