Introduction

This is an important judgement on the presumption relating to the legitimacy of the child under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) in relation with the chastity and fidelity of the woman.

Facts

• The husband, seeking to prove his claim of his wife's infidelity, applied to the Family Court for a DNA test.
• This test aimed to determine whether he was the biological father of the male child born to his wife.
• The objective was to substantiate his divorce petition's allegations, asserting that if the DNA test revealed he was not the child's father, his accusations against his wife would be supported.
• In response, the wife submitted written objections, contending that the allegations were malicious and intended to tarnish her reputation.
• She vehemently denied the husband's claims of an extramarital affair leading to the birth of the child.
• The wife insisted on a continuous marital relationship, asserting that the husband fulfilled all matrimonial duties and cohabited with her.
• Consequently, the wife sought the dismissal of the husband's application for a DNA test on himself and the child.
• The Family Court, on 27^th August 2012, rejected the husband's request.
• Dissatisfied, the husband appealed to the Calcutta High Court in its civil revisional jurisdiction, which, on 6^th December 2012, granted his petition.
• Challenging the High Court's decision, the wife approached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Issue Involved

• Whether the appellant wife was disloyal to her husband?

Observation

• The husband who responded in the legal case clearly and definitively stated in his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that he believed his wife was unfaithful.
  • He even went so far as to name the person he claimed was the father of the child born to his wife.
• To support his infidelity claim, the husband applied for a DNA test to determine whether he was indeed the father of the child.
• The husband faced a challenge in proving the allegations he made against his wife regarding infidelity.
• The most legitimate and scientifically accurate method available to him to establish his claim was through a DNA test.
• Consequently, SC said that the HC's directive for a DNA test was deemed fully justified.
• It is evident that the husband's request for a DNA test for both the appellant's son and him was linked to the accusation of the wife's alleged adulterous behaviour.
• The court noted that the Section 112 of IEA was enacted before the consideration of modern scientific advancements and DNA tests.
• While this section establishes a presumption of conclusive proof under certain conditions, it is important to note that this presumption can be challenged with contrary evidence.
• The SC recognizes the scientific accuracy of DNA tests, which were not contemplated by the legislature when Section 112 of IEA was enacted.
• The court emphasizes that when there is a conflict between a legal presumption and scientific evidence accepted globally as accurate, the latter should take precedence for the interest of justice.
• The court held that “In situations where evidence contradicts the presumption, the court should rely on the best available scientific methods rather than solely on legal presumptions”.

Conclusion

• The SC held that the husband's plea that he had no access to the wife when the child was begotten stands proved by the DNA test report and in the face of it, the Court cannot compel the Appellant to bear the fatherhood of a child, when the scientific reports prove to the contrary.
• The SC upheld the order of HC.
• The court also held that “In case, she declines to comply with the direction issued by the HC, the allegation would be determined by the concerned Court, by drawing a presumption of the nature contemplated in Section 114 of the IEA, especially, in terms of illustration (h) thereof”.

Note

• Section 112 of IEA: 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 he is the legitimate 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.
• Section 114 of IEA: Court may presume existence of certain facts -
  • The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
  • Illustration (h) - That if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him.