The Supreme Court of India addressed the balance between privacy and the quest for biological parentage in a case involving a man seeking paternity confirmation from his alleged biological father. The court upheld the presumption of legitimacy, noting privacy concerns and the potential harm from forced DNA tests, ultimately concluding the man remains the legitimate son of his mother’s legal husband.
New Delhi: In a critical judgment addressing paternity, privacy, and legitimacy, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld a nuanced position that protects an individual’s right to privacy while balancing another’s desire to establish biological parentage.
The case revolved around a 23-year-old man who claimed to be the product of his mother’s extramarital affair. He sought a DNA test to prove paternity and secure financial maintenance from his alleged biological father. The verdict, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized the delicate interplay between privacy rights and the pursuit of truth in such cases.
The young man’s mother married in 1989 and had a daughter in 1991. The son was born in 2001, following which the couple separated in 2003. They were divorced in 2006. After the divorce, the woman attempted to change the father’s name in the son’s birth records, alleging he was born from an extramarital relationship. However, the Cochin Municipal Corporation declined the request without a court order, leading to a prolonged legal struggle.
In 2007, a court ordered the alleged biological father to undergo a DNA test, but he challenged this in the High Court in 2008. The High Court ruled that a paternity test could only be ordered if it was proven that the woman and her husband did not have marital access to each other, citing Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which presumes a child born during a valid marriage to be the husband’s legitimate child.
In 2015, the son, then 14, petitioned a family court to revive a maintenance case, citing multiple health issues and mounting medical expenses. He claimed his legal father had not contributed to his medical or educational costs. In 2018, the High Court sided with the son, asserting that legitimacy does not bar a child from seeking maintenance from their biological father. The alleged father escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.
The alleged biological father’s counsel, Romy Chacko, argued the son had not proven the mother’s non-access to her husband during the time of conception, thus maintaining the presumption of legitimacy. He also contested the requirement for a DNA test.
On the other hand, the son’s counsel, Shyam Padman, argued that “paternity” and “legitimacy” are distinct concepts, emphasizing that maintenance could still be claimed from the biological father, regardless of the child’s legitimacy.
The court noted that the mother and her husband were married and living together when the child was born. Even if there was an extramarital relationship, it did not negate the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court stated,
“Additional or simultaneous access does not disprove marital access between the spouses.”
The bench highlighted the need to weigh the son’s right to know his biological father against the alleged father’s right to privacy. The court remarked,
“Forcefully undergoing a DNA test subjects an individual’s private life to scrutiny, particularly in matters of infidelity, which can irreversibly affect one’s social and professional life.”
The court also emphasized the potential misuse of paternity claims against women, warning that such cases could lead to harassment and mental distress for vulnerable mothers. It added,
“A preliminary enquiry into a person’s private life is permissible to rebut legitimacy, but the law does not allow a roving enquiry like a DNA test without sufficient evidence.”
The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented by the son did not rebut the presumption of legitimacy. It ruled that the man remains presumed to be the legitimate son of his mother’s former husband and legal father. The bench stated,
“This protracted case, spanning over two decades, must be closed for all intents and purposes.”
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
