The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in providing conclusive proof of legitimacy of a child born during a valid marriage, and the need for strong prima facie evidence before ordering DNA tests in paternity disputes.

1. The submissions made by Mr. P. Valliappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr. K. Vasu Venkat, learned counsel appearing the respondent are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

2. The first defendant in the original suit O.S.No.219/2010 on the file of the District Munsif, Rasipuram is the petitioner in the present revision. The other defendants are daughters and wife of one Varadharajan, the brother of the revision petitioner. The said suit was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein for partition and maintenance. Partition was claimed in respect of the share of the first respondent and maintenance was claimed for the second respondent.

3. Admittedly, the second respondent is the wife of the revision petitioner. The claim for partition was made on the basis of the contention that the minor first respondent is the son of the revision petitioner born through the second respondent. However, the revision petitioner/first defendant is resisting the suit denying the paternity of the first respondent.

4. In order to prove his case that the first respondent herein is not the son of the revision petitioner, he filed a petition in I.A.No.316/2011 for a direction to conduct DNA test for ascertaining the paternity of the first respondent. The said petition was resisted by the respondents herein contending that DNA test for ascertaining paternity of the minor cannot be done to nullify the provision found in Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is to the effect 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. Though the section provides a rider that the person disputing the paternity can show that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any point of time when the person could have been begotten. It was contended that even relying on the rider, the revision petitioner could not ask for a paternity test to be conducted to disprove the paternity of the child, namely the first respondent herein.

5. The learned District Munsif, Rasipuram, after hearing both sides, by a detailed order, dismissed the petition filed by the revision petitioner holding that the attempt made by the revision petitioner was to nullify the protection afforded under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The learned District Munsif has also held that even if it is found in the DNA test that the DNA of the child does not tally with the DNA of the revision petitioner, that alone shall not be enough to dislodge the protection afforded under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 unless and until it is proved by satisfactory evidence that the revision petitioner did not have any access to the second respondent during the period when the first respondent could have been begotten. In arriving at such a conclusion, the learned District Munsif referred to various judgments, which enunciated and reiterated the above said points and this court deems it unnecessary to refer to all those judgments in this order. Suffice to refer to certain extracts from the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in i) Dukhtar Jahan (Smt) v. Mohammed Farooq reported in (1987) 1 SCC 624; ii) Smt.Kanti Devi vs. Poshi Ram reported in2001 (2) CTC 625 (SC) : 2001 (5) SCC 311 and iii) Bhabani Prasad Jana vs. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women & Anr. reported inAIR 2010 SC 2851.

6. In Dukhtar Jahan (Smt) v. Mohammed Farooq reported in (1987) 1 SCC 624, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

"Section 112 lays down that if a person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any many or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution and the mother remains unmarried, it shall be taken as conclusive proof that he is t