The presumption of legitimacy under s 112 of the Evidence Act does not preclude inquiries into paternity, emphasizing the child's right to know their biological parents.

[3] The 1st defendant is a female who is an Air Stewardess/Flight Attendant. The 2nd defendant is a pilot and the 1st defendant's husband. The defendants married on 3 March 2007. On 23 June 2008, the 1st defendant gave birth to her daughter who will be referred to in this judgment as Child C. Child C thus was born into a valid marriage between the defendants.

[4] The plaintiff is a male and also makes his living as a pilot. He works in the same airline as the 1st defendant but different from that of the 2nd defendant. We consider it significant to highlight that all the parties concerned in this suit are non-Muslims.

[5] It is the plaintiff's claim that he had been having an affair with the 1st defendant even before her marriage to the 2nd defendant, and that this affair continued even after the defendants' marriage.

[6] The plaintiff claims that when Child C was born, he had lived periodically with the 1st defendant and Child C as a family, notably when the 2nd defendant was on flight duty. This remains a disputed fact. The 2nd defendant was not in the country at this point. The plaintiff also alleged that all this while, he had been paying the 1st defendant a monthly sum as "maintenance" for Child C, initially in the amount of RM1,000.00 per month and that he later increased this to RM3,000.00 per month. He claimed that his payment of this "maintenance" only stopped when the 1st defendant closed her Maybank account circa August 2014. The plaintiff asserted that the 1st defendant stopped giving him access to Child C in December 2013 and ended their relationship in early 2014.

[7] The plaintiff sought recourse by filing this suit, namely this amended Originating Summons ('Enclosure 5') praying for the following reliefs:

(1) That a DNA test be carried out in order to determine whether the plaintiff is the biological father of the said child;

(2) If the test shows that the plaintiff is the father of the said child then:

2.1 The plaintiff be declared as the biological father of the said child;

2.2 The birth certificate of the said child be rectified to name the plaintiff as the biological father;

2.3 The plaintiff be given joint guardianship;

2.4 Reasonable access rights according to the plaintiff's work schedule;

2.5 The defendants or their representatives be prevented from bringing the said child out of the country without the written permission of the plaintiff.

(3) Alternatively, if the DNA test is negative, the plaintiff will withdraw prayers 2.1 - 2.5 above.

[8] The plaintiff filed encl 5 on the grounds, inter alia, that it was necessary for Child C to know who her birth father was, in case of any medical emergencies that may arise in the future.

[9] The defendants opposed the action. They argued that if the court allowed the plaintiff's declaration on the point of paternity, ie declaring the plaintiff as the Child C's biological father, the said declaration would render Child C an illegitimate child - being born out of the wedlock between the defendants.

[10] The defendants accordingly retaliated with an application of their own for the determination of questions of law pursuant to O 14A of the Rules of 2012 (' ROC ') and s 15 of the CJA 1964. They prayed for the following reliefs ('encl 16'):

(1) Since s 112 of the Evidence Act ( EA ) 1950 states that the said child [name omitted] who was born to the defendants during the subsistence of a legal marriage, is the legal child of the defendants, that