The court has jurisdiction to determine paternity, distinguishing it from legitimacy, and accepted DNA testing as conclusive evidence of biological parentage.

Introduction

[1] This is an application by the Applicant under O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) and under s 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 ( SRA ) for a declaratory order that the 1st Applicant is the biological son of Muhammad Risya Rizuan Mat Aripin based on the certificate of analysis Lab No: DM220305676 dated 1 April 2022 from DNA Laboratories Sdn Bhd.

[2] The 1st Applicant is a child and for the purpose of this application is acting by his mother who is the 2nd Applicant.

The Salient Facts

[3] The 2nd Applicant in her affidavit contended that she and the Respondent had an extramarital affair on 12 November 2020. As a result of the affair, the 2nd Applicant became pregnant and gave birth to the 1st Applicant.

[4] Upon being persuaded, the Respondent did a paternity test through his blood specimen and the 2nd Applicant's blood. The DNA report dated 1 April 2022 with Analyst Lab No: DM220305676 exhibited as CR-3 of E4 shows that the Respondent is the biological father of the 1st Applicant with a 99.9994% probability of paternity.

[5] Nevertheless, the Respondent was reluctant to admit the report and the status of the paternity report. Hence this application was made.

Issues To Be Tried

[6] Based on the submission filed by both parties, there are 2 issues ventilated by both parties to be determined by this Court. The issues are as follows:

(a) whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Applicants' application; and

(b) whether it is proved that the Respondent is the biological father to the 1st Applicant.

Analysis And Findings Of This Court

Issue (a) Whether This Court Has Jurisdiction To Entertain The Applicants' Application

[7] The Respondent's Counsel argued that both Applicants and Respondent are Muslim and as such, issues relating to biological father and legitimacy are not within the jurisdiction of this Court. Though s 40 SRA is a general provision relating to the power of this Court to make a declaratory order of any legal character, yet, since all parties are Muslim, the only Court which has such power is the Syariah Court.

[8] The learned Counsel brought the attention of this Court to s 9(2) of Enakmen Pentadbiran Mahkamah Syariah Kelantan No 3/1982 (the said Enactment) which provides as follows:

"(2) Dalam bidang kuasa sivilnya, mendengar dan memutuskan segala tindakan dan perbicaraan dalam mana pihak-pihak berkenaan semuanya berugama Islam dan yang berkenaan dengan:

(i) pertunangan, perkahwinan (termasuk taat balik) perceraian, khuluk, fasakh, cerai taliq, menentukan giliran, lian, ila, atau mana-mana perkara yang berkaitan dengan perhubungan suami isteri;

(ii) mana-mana pembahagian atau tuntutan kepada mana-mana harta yang terbit dari mana-mana perkara yang tersebut dalam perenggan kecil (i) seksyen ini;

(iii) nafkah orang-orang tanggungannya, pengesahan taraf kanak-kanak, penjagaan atau pemeliharaan kanak kanak;

(iv) pembahagian atau tuntutan kepada harta sepencarian atau dom;

(v) menentukan nasab atau faraidh orang-orang yang berhak mendapat bahagian pesaka;

(vi) alang hayat (hibah) atau membatalkannya;

(vii) wasiat atau wakaf atau nazar; atau

(viii) lain-lain perkara yang mana bidangkuasanya telah ditetapkan oleh mana-mana undang-undang bertulis:

"Dengan syarat bahawa Mahkamah itu lazimnya, tidaklah membicarakan mana-mana kesalahan atau mendengar atau menentukan mana-mana tindakan atau pembicaraan mengenai mana-mana Mahkamah Qadhi Khas atau Qadhi Jajahan yang mempunyai bidangkuasa tersebut"

[9] The learned Counsel argued that it is clear that the issue of legitimacy