In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a husband’s request for blood samples from his wife and minor child to establish paternity and substantiate his accusations of adultery. The ruling, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal, underscores the legal presumption of a child’s legitimacy when born to a couple living as husband and wife, as enshrined in Section 112 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The case involved a man who, suffering from azoospermia—a condition resulting in a lack of sperm in the ejaculate—questioned the paternity of the child born during his marriage. He alleged that his wife had been unfaithful, leading to the birth of a child that biologically could not be his. The plea was made in the context of a broader divorce petition filed on the grounds of cruelty, with the husband seeking to amend his petition to include his medical condition as evidence of his wife’s alleged adultery.
The court’s decision hinged on the principle that the legitimacy of a child born within a marriage is presumed, especially when the couple has cohabited during the period leading to the child’s birth. The bench pointed out,
“In this case, concededly, the disputants/couple lived together as husband and wife between 2008 and 2019. Given this undeniable fact, the presumption in favour of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act springs forth qua the minor child.”
Furthermore, the court noted the delay in the husband’s challenge to the child’s paternity, which only emerged in November 2020, well after the couple’s separation. This delay, coupled with the legal presumption of legitimacy, weighed against the husband’s plea.
The bench also considered the potential impact of the requested paternity test on the child, who was not a party to the proceedings. The justices emphasized the importance of protecting the child’s interests, stating,
“The appellant/husband cannot, by a sidewind, impact the interest of the child.” They suggested that the question of the wife’s alleged adultery could be explored during the trial without subjecting the child to a paternity test.
The husband’s initial plea for a paternity test had been rejected by a family court, leading to his appeal to the High Court. The High Court’s dismissal of this appeal reaffirms the judiciary’s cautious approach towards matters involving the welfare of children and the sanctity of marital relationships.
This ruling not only highlights the complexities involved in cases of alleged adultery and paternity disputes but also underscores the legal protections afforded to children born within a marriage. The decision serves as a significant precedent, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence and the prioritization of children’s rights in legal disputes concerning family matters.
Advocate Ashish Negi represented the appellant-husband, while the wife did not have representation in the court. The case’s outcome is a reminder of the intricate balance courts must maintain between individual rights and the overarching principles of justice and child welfare.
