The Supreme Court on Tuesday reaffirmed the principle that a child's legitimacy determines paternity, emphasising that a child born during a valid marriage is presumed to be the legitimate offspring of the parents who had access to each other at the time of conception. Dismissing the argument that legitimacy and paternity are distinct concepts requiring separate determination, the apex court clarified that the two are inherently intertwined.


It also upheld a man's right to refuse DNA testing to determine parentage citing the right to 'privacy and dignity'. The Court ruled that if it is proven that the married couple had access to each other during the time of conception, the child is deemed legitimate, thereby establishing the paternity of the couple, not requiring the person alleged to be the biological father to undergo a DNA test.


The legitimacy of a child directly establishes the paternity of the couple.


“The language of the provision (S. 112 of Evidence Act) makes it abundantly clear that there exists a strong presumption that the husband is the father of the child borne by his wife during the subsistence of their marriage. This section provides that conclusive proof of legitimacy is equivalent to paternity. The object of this principle is to prevent any unwarranted enquiry into the parentage of a child. Since the presumption is in favour of legitimacy, the burden is cast upon the person who asserts 'illegitimacy' to prove it only through 'non-access,'” the Court stated, as reported by Live Law.


The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard a case in which the Respondent and his mother claimed that the Appellant was his biological father, despite the Respondent being born during his mother's marriage to another man, referred to as RK. The Respondent had filed a civil suit seeking a paternity declaration, but it was dismissed, upholding the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in favour of RK.


Despite the concurrent findings by multiple courts that upheld the presumption of legitimacy, the family court revived a Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance plea filed by the Respondent, which had been halted earlier. The Appellant subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court after the High Court approved the revival of the maintenance plea against him, as per Live Law's report.


Appellant Argued Against DNA Test, Respondent Said Legitimacy And Paternity Are Distinct Concepts 


The Appellant contended that a maintenance plea under Section 125 Cr.P.C. could not be maintained against him as he had never cohabited with the Respondent's mother and had no access to her during the time of the Respondent's conception. He also argued that he could not be forced to undergo a DNA test, as a DNA test is only permitted when a strong prima facie case is made proving non-access between the spouses. Since the Respondent’s mother and RK had full access to each other during the time of the Respondent's conception, the Appellant argued that a DNA test would violate his right to privacy.


In contrast, the Respondent's counsel argued that legitimacy and paternity 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," said Shyam Padman, representing the Respondent, as reported by NDTV.


ALSO READ | 2020 Delhi Riots Accused, AIMIM Candidate Tahir Hussain Gets Custody Parole To Campaign In Delhi Polls


Supreme Court Upholds Man's Refusal To Undergo DNA Test Citing 'Right To Protect Dignity & Privacy'


After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court ruled that once it is proven that a child was born during a valid marriage, the child is presumed to be legitimate under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, thereby establishing the paternity of the parents involved. The Court clarified that this presumption can only be rebutted by proving non-access, which would indicate that the spouses could not have had marital relations at the time of conception. Allegations of adultery or simultaneous access are not sufficient to rebut the presumption of legitimacy.


The Court's judgement noted, “In the case at hand, it is an admitted fact that when the Respondent was begotten in 2001, his mother and RK were married. They were living under the same roof from 1989 till 2003. Even if it is assumed that the Respondent's mother had relations with the Appellant, such a fact would not be sufficient to displace the presumption of legitimacy.”


The Court also discussed the balancing of the child's right to know his biological father with the right to privacy of the individual who is claimed to be the 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 Court observed, as quoted by NDTV.


It further stated that a forceful DNA test would subject a person to scrutiny. "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 apex court noted.


The final ruling maintained that legitimacy determines paternity under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and any claim by the 23-year-old about his perceived relationship with the Appellant was negated. The Court held that the Respondent is presumed to be the legitimate son of his mother's former husband.