Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Aparna Ajinkya Firodia VS Ajinkya Arun Firodia...
Aparna Ajinkya Firodia VS Ajinkya Arun Firodia - 2023 3 Supreme 418 : In a civil case, paternity of a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage is conclusively presumed under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This presumption is rebuttable only by proving non-access of the husband at the time the child could have been begotten. A DNA test cannot rebut this conclusive presumption unless there is sufficient prima-facie evidence of non-access. Courts must not mechanically order DNA tests; they should be directed only in exceptional cases where there is no other mode of proving paternity, and when the paternity is directly in issue. The court must consider the child''''s right to privacy, bodily integrity, and protection from social stigma and inheritance complications. A DNA test may be ordered only when there is a strong prima facie case for non-access and the test is indispensable to resolve the controversy. Merely disputing paternity is not sufficient to warrant a DNA test. The burden lies on the party challenging legitimacy to prove non-access, and the court must exercise its discretion carefully, especially in cases where the child is not a party to the proceeding.Checking relevance for Ivan Rathinam VS Milan Joseph...
Ivan Rathinam VS Milan Joseph - 2025 3 Supreme 600 : In a civil case, paternity can be proven under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which presumes the husband to be the father of a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage. This presumption of legitimacy is conclusive proof of paternity. To challenge this presumption, the party asserting illegitimacy must establish non-access through cogent and reliable evidence. DNA testing may be ordered only if a strong prima facie case of non-access is made out, supported by sufficient material before the court, and if the test is in the best interests of the child. The law permits only a preliminary enquiry into private life through evidence of non-access; courts cannot permit roving enquiries into personal privacy, such as forced DNA tests, unless the statutory conditions are met.Checking relevance for Goutam Kundu VS State Of W. B. ...
Goutam Kundu VS State Of W. B. - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 532 : In civil cases in India, paternity cannot be conclusively proven through blood group tests alone. Courts cannot order blood tests as a matter of course. The presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1873 creates a conclusive proof that a child born during a valid marriage is the legitimate child of the husband. This presumption can only be rebutted by proving ''''non-access''''—that is, showing there was no opportunity for sexual intercourse between the husband and wife during the time the child could have been conceived. This requires strong, distinct, and conclusive evidence, not merely a balance of probabilities. While blood tests can be used to exclude paternity (i.e., prove a man is not the father), they cannot establish paternity positively. Courts may draw adverse inferences from a party''''s refusal to undergo a blood test, but no person can be compelled to submit to such a test without consent. The court must also consider whether the application for a blood test is made in good faith or for ulterior motives such as avoiding maintenance obligations. Ultimately, the burden lies on the party disputing paternity to prove non-access, and the court must carefully examine the consequences of ordering a blood test, especially in the child''''s best interests.Checking relevance for Goutam Kundu VS State Of W. B. ...
Goutam Kundu VS State Of W. B. - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 539 : In civil paternity cases in India, courts cannot order a blood test as a matter of course. The court must carefully examine whether ordering the test would be in the best interests of the child. No one can be compelled to give a blood sample without consent, as it constitutes a constraint on personal liberty. A party may refuse to undergo a blood test, but the court may draw an adverse inference from such refusal. However, the court cannot compel a person to submit to testing. The primary method to prove paternity is through establishing a sexual relationship with the mother at the time of conception, and the burden of proof lies on the person disputing paternity to establish non-access. The presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act is conclusive and can only be rebutted by strong, distinct, satisfactory, and conclusive evidence of non-access, which must meet a standard similar to that in criminal cases. Blood tests can only be used to exclude paternity (i.e., prove someone is not the father), not to prove paternity definitively. The court may consider blood test results if consent is given, but cannot order them against the will of the parties. In civil proceedings, the court may direct a blood test only if it is in the best interests of the child, and such discretion is exercised wisely by the judge.Checking relevance for Palanisamy VS Vijayakumar...
Palanisamy VS Vijayakumar - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 24 : In a civil case involving a paternity dispute, a DNA test may be ordered by the court to determine the veracity of allegations and balance the interests of the parties. The court has the authority to direct a DNA test, and the defendant may be given the liberty to comply with or disregard the order. If the defendant declines to undergo the test, a presumption under the Indian Evidence Act may be drawn against them, which can be used as evidence in the case. This approach is supported by precedents such as 2010 8 SCC 633, 2014 2 SCC 576, and 2015 1 SCC 365.
