Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that if it is proved that the married couple had access to each other at the time of the child's conception, the child is deemed legitimate, thereby establishing the paternity of the couple.                

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025).

What was the Background of Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph Case?  

• The Respondent’s mother married Mr. Raju Kurian on and had a daughter in 1991. 
• The Respondent was born on 11.06.2001, and Mr. Raju Kurian was listed as his father in the birth register. 
• Due to marital differences, the Respondent’s mother and Mr. Raju Kurian separated in 2003 and obtained a divorce in 2006. 
• The Respondent’s mother claimed the Appellant was the biological father, as she had an extra-marital affair with him, and requested a name change in the birth register, which was denied without a court order. 
• First Round of Litigation: 
  • In 2007, the Respondent and his mother filed suit before the Munsiff Court, seeking a declaration of the Appellant as the father and a direction for a DNA test. 
  • The Munsiff Court directed the Appellant to undergo a DNA test, but he challenged it before the High Court. 
  • The High Court ruled that a paternity test could only be ordered if a strong prima facie case was established under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 
  • The Appellant sought a review, citing Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram, and the High Court revised its order, stating that a DNA test could only be permitted if non-access between the Respondent’s mother and Mr. Raju Kurian was proven. 
  • The Respondent and his mother challenged this before the Supreme Court, which dismissed it on 14th September 2009. 
  • The Munsiff Court dismissed the Original Suit citing that the Respondent’s mother failed to prove non-access. 
  • The Family Court closed the Maintenance Petition but allowed its revival if the Original Suit was overturned. 
  • The Respondent and his mother appealed to the III Additional Sub-Judge, Ernakulam, but the appeal was dismissed on 21st February 2011. 
  • A Second Appeal (RSA No. 973/2011) before the High Court was also dismissed on 28th October 2011, upholding the legitimacy presumption. The order attained finality. 
• Second Round of Litigation: 
  • In 2015, the Respondent sought to revive the Maintenance Petition, citing financial difficulties and lack of support from Mr. Raju Kurian. 
  • The Family Court revived the petition on 09th November 2015, ruling that it had exclusive jurisdiction over maintenance and legitimacy matters. 
  • The Appellant challenged this before the High Court, arguing that the issue had been decided earlier and could not be reopened. 
  • The High Court, in its judgment dated 21st May 2018, ruled that: 
    • Legitimacy does not affect a child's right to maintenance from the biological father. 
    • A paternity inquiry is distinct from legitimacy under Section 125 the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).  
    • Civil Court rulings on legitimacy do not bar a Family Court from determining paternity for maintenance. 
• Aggrieved, the Appellant filed an instant appeal before the Supreme Court.  
• The Supreme Court answered the following questions in this case: 
  • Whether presumption of legitimacy determines paternity in law? 
  • Whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the Original Suit; and accordingly, whether the Family Court was entitled to reopen the Maintenance Petition? 
  • Whether the second round of litigation, initiated by the Respondent, was barred by the principle of res judicata? 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• With Respect to Issue (i): 
  • This issue hinges on two prongs:  
    • Distinction between ‘legitimacy’ and ‘paternity’. 
    • Balancing of interest and the ‘eminent test’ for a DNA test. 
  • The Court in this case analyzed the position all over the world and held around the globe it is recognized that in the venn diagram of paternity and legitimacy, legitimacy is not an independent circle but is embodied within paternity. 
  • It was further observed that Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) 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. 
  • For a person to rebut the presumption of legitimacy, they must first assert non-access which, in turn, must be substantiated by evidence. 
  • Even if it is assumed that the Respondent’s mother had relations with the Appellant during her marriage and especially when the Respondent was begotten, such a fact per se, would not be sufficient to displace the presumption of legitimacy. 
  • What needs to be clarified is that an ‘additional’ access or ‘multiple’ access does not automatically negate the access between the spouses and proves non-access thereof. 
  • Further, the Court held that the balance of interest in this case is not such that there is eminent need for DNA test.  
• With Respect to issue (ii): 
  • The Court held that the jurisdiction conferred upon Family Court is for settlement of issues arising out of matrimonial causes. 
  • The Court held that the matter cannot be construed to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court. 
• With Respect to Issue (iii): 
  • The Court held that the order of Family Court reviving the maintenance petition is in direct contravention with the principles of res judicata.

What is Section 112 of IEA?

• Section 112 - Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy –– The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that s/he is the legitimate daughter/son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten. 
• Conclusive Proof is defined by Section 4 of IEA as: 
  • When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it. 
• The conclusive proof of paternity can only be rebutted by proving non-access by the husband at the time of conception of the child. Access here means actual marital intercourse. 
  • It must in all cases be established that at the time of conception, there was no chance that husband and wife could have access to each other. E.g. One was in London whereas the other was in India at the time of conception. 
• This provision is contained in Section 116 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). 

What are the Landmark Judgments on Section 112 of IEA? 

• Nandlal Wasudev Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014):  
  • The SC held that the IEA was enacted at the time when modern scientific techniques were not in existence. When the truth is known there is no scope of presumption but where there is conflict between conclusive proof and modern scientific techniques, the latter must prevail over the prior. 
• Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroti Roy (2015): 
  • Husband’s Allegation of Infidelity – The husband, in his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claimed that his wife was unfaithful and identified another person as the father of the child. 
  • Request for DNA Test – To substantiate his claim, the husband sought a DNA test to determine the child’s paternity. 
  • Challenge in Proving Infidelity – The husband struggled to provide direct evidence of the alleged adultery, making a DNA test the most reliable scientific method to prove his claim. 
  • HC’s DNA Test Order Upheld – The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the High Court’s directive for a DNA test was justified in this context. 
  • Link to Adulterous Behavior – The husband's request for the DNA test was directly connected to his allegation of his wife’s infidelity. 
  • Section 112 of IEA & Modern Science – The court acknowledged that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which establishes a presumption of legitimacy, was enacted before the advent of DNA testing. 
  • Presumption Can Be Challenged – The court noted that while Section 112 provides a conclusive presumption, it is not absolute and can be rebutted with scientific evidence. 
  • Scientific Evidence v. Legal Presumption – The SC recognized DNA testing as a highly accurate scientific tool and emphasized that when legal presumptions conflict with globally accepted scientific evidence, the latter should prevail. 
  • Justice & Best Scientific Methods – The court ruled that in cases where scientific evidence contradicts legal presumptions, courts should prioritize scientific accuracy over legal technicalities to ensure justice.