Section 112 of IEA

Introduction

The rule of evidence contained in Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) raises a conclusive presumption that a child born during wedlock is the legitimate issue of that man. This Section is in favor of validity of marriages and legitimacy.

Section 112, IEA

• This section deals with birth during marriage which is the conclusive proof of legitimacy.
• It states that 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.
• This section is based on the legal maxim ‘pater est quem nupital demonstrant’ which means he is the father whom the marriage indicates.
• This section assumed the existence of a legal marriage and says that birth during continuance of valid marriage is conclusive proof of legitimacy.
• Evidence that a child is born during wedlock is sufficient to establish its legitimacy and shifts the burden of proof to the party seeking to establish the contrary.

Essential Conditions Under Section 112

• For the purpose of drawing a conclusive presumption as to legitimacy the following conditions have to be satisfied:
  • The child should have been born during the continuance of a valid marriage or if the marriage is dissolved then within 280 days after the dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried.
  • The parties to the marriage should have had access to each other at any time when the child could have been begotten.

Effect of Section 112

• A very strong protection is provided for the lawfully constituted family and to the progeny born out of such wedlock.
• The presumption of legitimacy of a child can only be displaced by a strong preponderance of evidence of non-access and not by mere balance of probabilities.

Case Laws

• Shyam Lal v. Sanjeev Kumar (2009), the Supreme Court held that on the proof of legitimacy of child, there is a strong presumption about the legitimacy of child born out of that wedlock. The presumption can only be rebutted by strong, clear and conclusive evidence.
• Gautam Kundu v. West Bengal (1993), the Supreme Court observed that in view of the provision of Section 112 of IEA, there is no scope of permitting the husband to avail of the blood test for dislodging the presumption of legitimacy arising out of this section.