2025 Supreme(SC) 231

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Ivan Rathinam – Appellant
Versus
Milan Joseph – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2025 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4917 of 2018]
Decided On : 28-01-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Presumption of legitimacy of child – Theoretical difference in ‘paternity’ and ‘legitimacy’ – Conclusive proof of legitimacy is equivalent to paternity – DNA tests may be ordered, only if a strong prima facie case of non-access is made out, with sufficient material placed before court to arrive at a decision – ‘Additional’ access or ‘multiple’ access does not automatically negate access between spouses and prove non-access thereof.
(2) Law permits only preliminary enquiry into a person’s private life by allowing parties to bring evidence on record to prove non-access to dislodge presumption of legitimacy – When law provides for a mode to attain a particular object, that mode must be satisfied.
(3) Exclusive jurisdiction of Family Court – Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to legitimacy of a person – However, Family Court cannot entertain any proceedings for a declaration of legitimacy without a claim on marital relationship – Issue concerning alleged extra-marital relationship cannot be construed to fall within exclusive jurisdiction of Family Court.
(4) Res Judicata – Principle of res judicata is a salutary and pragmatic edict to reinforce doctrine of finality – Courts must pay heed to settled principles of law and avoid unearthing established precedents.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 112 – Presumption of legitimacy of child – Displacing notion of legitimacy – Scientifically and technically, a legitimate child, born during subsistence of a valid marriage between two persons, may not always be biological child of persons in marriage – In a more technical sense, terms ‘legitimacy’ and ‘paternity’ may undertake different meanings – Any person could apply to High Court for a declaration as to whether that person is parent of another person – Court may refuse to hear application if it considers that determination of application would not be in best interests of child – Court can order DNA test only after cogent and reliable evidence is led to prove illegitimacy and if test is in ‘best interests’ of child. (Paras 11, 15 and 20)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 112 – Presumption of legitimacy of child – Theoretical difference in ‘paternity’ and ‘legitimacy’ – Advent of scientific testing has made it much easier to prove that a child is not a particular person’s offspring – To this end, Indian courts have sanctioned use of DNA testing, but sparingly – There exists strong presumption that husband is father of child borne by his wife during subsistence of their marriage – Conclusive proof of legitimacy is equivalent to paternity – Object of this principle is to prevent any unwarranted enquiry into parentage of a child – Since presumption is in favour of legitimacy, burden is cast upon person who asserts ‘illegitimacy’ to prove it only through ‘non-access – Access and non-access under Section 112 do not require a party to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had or did not have sexual intercourse at the time child could have been begotten – ‘Access’ merely refers to possibility of opportunity for marital relations – DNA tests may be ordered, only if a strong prima facie case of non-access is made out, with sufficient material placed before court to arrive at a decision – ‘Additional’ access or ‘multiple’ access does not automatically negate access between spouses and prove non-access thereof – There is statutory mandate that Respondent must be presumed to be son of appellant – Challenge raised before High Court that ‘paternity’ and ‘legitimacy’ are distinct or independent concepts is a misdirected notion and is liable to be rejected – High Court’s view that ‘paternity’ can be determined independent of concurrent findings regarding legitimacy of child, cannot be sustained. (Paras 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 31)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 112 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to privacy and right to dignity – DNA Test – Privacy includes, at its core, preservation of personal intimacies, sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, home, and sexual orientation – While permitting enquiry into a person’s paternity vide a DNA test, Court must be mindful of the collateral infringement of privacy – A person can exercise his right to privacy in order to protect his right to dignity and vice-versa – Forcefully undergoing DNA test would subject an individual’s private life to scrutiny from outside world – He has right to undertake certain actions to protect his dignity and privacy, including refusing to undergo a DNA test – Usually, in cases concerning legitimacy, it is child’s dignity and privacy that have to be protected, as they primarily come under line of fire – Though in this instance, child is a major and is voluntarily submitting himself to this test, he is not the only stakeholder bearing personal interest in results, whatever they may be – Effects of social stigma surrounding an illegitimate child make their way into parents’ lives as there may be undue scrutiny owing to alleged infidelity – Respondent is already declared to be a legitimate son – There is no ‘eminent need’ for DNA test – Law permits only preliminary enquiry into a person’s private life by allowing parties to bring evidence on record to prove non-access to dislodge presumption of legitimacy – When law provides for a mode to attain a particular object, that mode must be satisfied – When evidence submitted does not rebut this presumption, court cannot subvert law to attain a particular object, by permitting roving enquiry into a person’s private life, such as through DNA test. (Paras 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44 and 51)

(D) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 112 – Eminent need for DNA test – Court balances interests of those involved and must consider whether it is possible to reach truth without use of such a test – First and foremost, courts must consider existing evidence to assess presumption of legitimacy – If that evidence is insufficient to come to a finding, only then should court consider ordering DNA test – Once insufficiency of evidence is established, court must consider whether ordering a DNA test is in best interests of parties involved and must ensure that it does not cause undue harm to parties – There are two blockades to ordering DNA test: (i) insufficiency of evidence; and (ii) a positive finding regarding balance of interests. (Paras 46 and 47)

(E) Family Courts Act, 1984 – Sections 7 and 8 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Exclusive jurisdiction of Family Court – Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to legitimacy of a person – However, Family Court cannot entertain any proceedings for a declaration of legitimacy without a claim on marital relationship – Jurisdiction conferred upon Family Court is for settlement of issues arising out of matrimonial causes – A matrimonial cause essentially relates to rights of marriage between husband and wife – Issue concerning alleged extra-marital relationship between Appellant and Respondent’s mother, cannot be construed to fall within exclusive jurisdiction of Family Court – Family Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of court’s process. (Paras 56, 58 and 59)

(F) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Res Judicata – Principle of res judicata is a salutary and pragmatic edict to reinforce doctrine of finality – Permitting second round of litigation, when issue was already settled inter partes, is a grave misuse of judicial time and resources – Courts must pay heed to settled principles of law and avoid unearthing established precedents – As lis stood adjudicated, no court of law, except in appeal, could have proceeded to decide the same issue arising between same parties, regardless of whether it was incidental to other proceedings – Family Court at a later point in time could not have revived Maintenance Petition, simply under the guise that issue of maintenance would be entirely divorced from an analysis of issue of legitimacy, such that they could be examined in distinct silos – Impugned Judgment of High Court and of Family Court set aside. (Paras 65, 66, 67, 68 and 70)

Facts of the case:

Instant appeal impugns the Judgment dated 21.05.2018 passed by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, upholding the Family Court’s order dated 09.11.2015 reviving a maintenance petition on following grounds: (i) paternity and legitimacy are independent concepts in law; (ii) Civil Courts did not have jurisdiction to entertain the original suit; and (iii) since only Family Court can determine maintenance and legitimacy, Family Court could proceed to determine paternity as incidental to the maintenance proceedings.

Findings of Court:

This convoluted case, spanning over two decades, has no doubt taken its toll on parties involved and other relevant stakeholders. Given these extenuating circumstances, at this stage, it must be closed for all intents and purposes.

Result : Appeal allowed.