Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, R.K. Agrawal, JJ.
Dipanwita Roy - Appellant
versus
Ronobroto Roy - Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9744 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5694 of 2013)
Decided on: 15-10-2014
(2010) 8 SCC 633 ; (2014) 2 SCC 576—Relied.
AIR 1934 PC 49 ; 1954 SCR 424 ; (1993) 3 SCC 418 ; AIR 2001 SC 2226 ; (2009) 12 SCC 454—Discussed.
(B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 13(1)(ii)—Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Section 112—Adultery on part of wife—Disputed paternity of child—DNA Test—Respondent-husband has made clear and categorical assertions in petition filed by him under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, alleging infidelity—He has gone to extent of naming the person who was father of male child born to appellant-wife—It is in process of substantiating his allegation of infidelity, that respondent husband had made application before Family Court for conducting DNA test which would establish whether or not, he had fathered male child born to appellant-wife—DNA testing is most legitimate and scientifically perfect means which husband could use, to establish his assertion of infidelity—This should simultaneously be taken as the most authentic, rightful and correct means also with wife, for her to rebut assertions made by respondent-husband, and to establish that she had not been unfaithful, adulterous or disloyal—If appellant-wife is right, she shall be proved to be so—But for DNA test, it would be impossible for respondent-husband to establish and confirm assertions made in pleadings—Direction issued by High Court was fully justified. (Para 11)
Facts of case—
One of grounds for seeking divorce was, based on alleged adulterous life style of petitioner-wife. Family Court dismissed prayer made by respondent-husband, for conducting DNA test. However, High Court allowed petition filed by respondent-husband by impugned order.
Findings of Court—
We would, however, while upholding order passed by High Court, consider it just and appropriate to record a caveat, giving appellant-wife liberty to comply with or disregard order passed by the High Court, requiring holding of DNA test. In case, she accepts direction issued by High Court, DNA test will determine conclusively veracity of accusation levelled by respondent-husband, against her. In case, she declines to comply with direction issued by High Court, allegation would be determined by concerned Court, by drawing a presumption of nature contemplated in Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act.
Result—Appeal disposed of with directions.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
DNA testing is recognized as a highly legitimate and scientifically accurate method that a husband can use to establish infidelity by proving non-paternity of a child. It is considered the most authentic means available for such assertions (!) (!) .
The court may permit DNA testing when it is deemed eminently necessary, after carefully balancing the interests of both parties involved. The scientific accuracy of DNA tests can be sufficient to disprove the presumption of paternity established under relevant evidence laws (!) (!) .
The presumption of legitimacy of a child born during a valid marriage is strong but rebuttable, especially with the advent of modern scientific methods like DNA testing. When scientific evidence clearly demonstrates non-paternity, it can override the legal presumption of legitimacy (!) (!) .
The court has the discretion to order DNA tests in cases involving allegations of infidelity or disputes over paternity, but such orders should not be made routinely. The decision to conduct such tests must be based on the "eminent need" and a careful assessment of whether the test is essential for a just resolution (!) (!) .
The right to privacy must be balanced against the need for truth. While DNA testing is scientifically reliable, courts should exercise caution and ensure that such testing is only ordered when it is necessary for a fair adjudication, avoiding unnecessary invasion of privacy (!) (!) (!) .
If a party refuses to comply with a court-ordered DNA test, the court may draw a presumption under relevant evidence provisions, which can be adverse to the refusing party. This presumption is used to facilitate the truth-finding process while respecting individual privacy rights (!) (!) (!) .
The scientific accuracy of DNA testing can override the legal presumption of legitimacy of a child, especially when the test results clearly indicate non-paternity, thus allowing the court to make findings contrary to the presumption of legitimacy (!) (!) .
Any application for DNA testing should be made with a clear purpose and should be supported by a strong prima facie case. Courts should avoid roving inquiries and ensure that the request is made in good faith and with genuine necessity (!) (!) .
The court's primary concern is to ascertain the truth while safeguarding individual rights. Therefore, DNA testing should be used as a tool of justice only when it is the most appropriate and necessary means to resolve disputes related to paternity or infidelity (!) (!) .
When a DNA test is ordered, the process should be conducted transparently, with the parties present and expenses borne as directed by the court. The results should be used to arrive at a just conclusion, with the option for parties to accept or disregard the test outcome, in which case the court may draw adverse inferences (!) (!) (!) .
These points collectively emphasize that DNA testing is a valuable and scientifically reliable tool in matrimonial disputes involving allegations of infidelity, but its use must be carefully balanced with privacy considerations and the necessity for a fair and just process.
JUDGMENT
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
1. The petitioner-wife Dipanwita Roy and the respondent-husband Ronobroto Roy, were married at Calcutta. Their marriage was registered on 9.2.2003. The present controversy emerges from a petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the respondent, inter alia, seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnised between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband, on 25.1.2003.
2. One of the grounds for seeking divorce was, based on the alleged adulterous life style of the petitioner-wife. For his above assertion, the respondent-husband made the following allegations in paragraphs 23 to 25 of his petition:
“23. That since 22.09.2007 the petitioner never lived with the respondent and did not share bed at all. On a very few occasion since then the respondent came to the petitioner's place of residence to collect her things and lived there against the will of all to avoid public scandal the petitioner did not turn the respondent house on those occasion.
24. That by her extravagant life style the respondent has incurred heavy debts. Since she has not disclosed her present address to bank and has only given the address of the petitioner. The men and collection agents of different banks are frequently visiting the petitioner's house and harassing the petitioner. They are looking for the respondent for recovery of their dues. Notice from Attorney Firms for recovery of due from the respondent and her credit card statements showing heavy debts are being sent to the petitioner's address. The respondent purchased one car in 2007 with the petitioner's uncle, Shri Subrata Roy Chowdhary as the guarantor. The respondent has failed to pay the installments regularly.
25. That the petitioner states that the respondent has gone astray. She is leading a fast life and has lived in extra marital relationship with the said Mr. Deven Shah, a well to do person who too is a carrier gentlemen and has given birth to a child as a result of her cohabitation with Shri Deven Shah. It is reported that the respondent has given birth to a baby very recently. The respondent is presently living at the address as mentioned in the cause title of the plaint.”
(emphasis is ours)
3. The above factual position was contested by the petitioner-wife in her reply wherein she, inter alia, submitted as under:
“That the statements made in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the plaint are admitted by the respondent to the extent that the daughter namely “Biyas” is residing in the custody of the respondent's mother with the arrangement of the petitioner and as a result of which the petitioner used to come at his mother in law's place and spending days therein and the respondent used to spend time with him and carrying on their matrimonial obligation which includes co-habitation.
That the statements made in paragraph No.7 in the plaint is absolutely false, concocted, untrue, frivolous, vexatious and made with the purpose of harassing the respondent and the petitioner is call upon to prove the allegation in toto. It is categorically denied by the respondent that she was a selfish person, very much concern about her own self and own affairs and without any concern for the petitioner as alleged. The respondent further denied that she was self willed, arrogant and short tempered and she used to fly into rage every now and then over small matter and used to quarrel with the petitioner and his mother as alleged. The respondent further denied and disputes that she used to go out every now and then according to her whims without informing either the petitioner and his mother as alleged. That the respondent further denies and disputes that she failed to disclose her whereabouts and used to stay out for long hours as alleged. The respondent further denies and disputes that she does not care little for the feelings of either the petitioner or his mother as alleged. The respondent further denies and disputes tha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
