Legal dispute over paternity and maintenance. The case examines the relationship between a child’s legitimacy under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the ability to seek maintenance from an alleged biological father. It addresses the jurisdictional boundaries of civil and family courts in determining legitimacy and paternity, particularly regarding DNA testing and the principle of res judicata. The court ultimately upholds the presumption of legitimacy and clarifies when DNA tests can be ordered.
(A) Evidence Act, 1872, Section 112 – Evidence – Presumption of legitimacy – Whether the presumption of legitimacy, if not displaced, determines paternity in law? – Displacing the presumption of legitimacy and permitting a DNA test – Presumption of legitimacy comes from the maxim, “pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant” which means, “he is the father whom the marriage indicates to be so” – Since time immemorial, English Courts upheld that where a husband and wife cohabited and no evidence of impotency was forthcoming, the child is conclusively presumed to be legitimate even though the wife is known to have been guilty of infidelity – Over time, this strict rule was relaxed and the parties were permitted to rebut this presumption by claiming non- access and leading evidence accordingly – Held that the challenge raised before the 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 the concurrent findings regarding the legitimacy of the child thus, cannot be sustained – While permitting an enquiry into a person’s paternity vide a DNA test, we must be mindful of the collateral infringement of privacy – For this, the court must satisfy itself that the threshold three conditions i) legality, which postulates the existence of law; (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate State aim; and (iii) proportionality which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them, is satisfied – If even one of these conditions fails, it is considered an unwarranted invasion of privacy and consequently, of life and personal liberty as embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution – High Court erred in holding that the Respondent’s legitimate interest to know his father outweighs the infringement of the Appellant’s right to privacy and dignity.
(Para 13, 33 and 52)
(B) Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 7 and 8 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Family Court -Whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the Original Suit; and accordingly, whether the Family Court was entitled to reopen the Maintenance Petition? – Appellant asserted that the Munsiff Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Original Suit because it was filed for a declaration of paternity and for a mandatory injunction – Respondent claimed that the Family Court, alone, could adjudicate on paternity through the Maintenance Petition, as it is distinct from legitimacy – Further, the Respondent contended that the Family Court had exclusive jurisdiction to make a declaration regarding legitimacy – Held that that the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of a person – However, the Family Court cannot entertain any proceedings for a declaration of legitimacy without a claim on the marital relationship – Jurisdiction conferred upon the Family Court is for the settlement of issues arising out of matrimonial causes – A matrimonial cause essentially relates to the rights of marriage between a husband and wife – In the instant case, there is no claim regarding the marital relationship between the Respondent’s mother and Mr. ‘R’, and instead, it pertains to an alleged extra-marital relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent’s mother – This matter, therefore, cannot be construed to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court and was thus, rightly entertained by the Munsiff Court and subsequently, the Sub-Judge – Considering the fact that the condition imposed was not satisfied, the Maintenance Petition could not have been revived or reopened – As a necessary corollary thereto the Family Court erred in reviving the Maintenance Petition vide its order dated 09.11.2015.
(Para 55, 56, 58 and 63)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 11 – Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 7 and 8 – Res judicata – Issue already settled – Whether the second round of litigation, initiated by the Respondent, was barred by the principle of res judicata? – High Court’s order dated 28.10.2011, as already elucidated, was never challenged and attained finality – This concomitantly means that the issue of legitimacy was conclusively decided, in favour of the Appellant, inter partes on that very day – As the lis stood adjudicated, no court of law, except in appeal, could have proceeded to decide the same issue arising between the same parties, regardless of whether it was incidental to other proceedings – Given our understanding of the commonalities shared by the aspects of legitimacy and its effects on maintenance issues, there is no gainsaying that these particular subject matters are interdependent. In such a scenario, the Family Court at a later point in time could not have revived the Maintenance Petition, simply under the guise that the issue of maintenance would be entirely divorced from an analysis of the issue of legitimacy, such that they could be examined in distinct silos – In furtherance, permitting a second round of litigation, when the issue was already settled inter partes, is a grave misuse of judicial time and resources Family Court’s order dated 09.11.2015, reviving the Maintenance Petition, is ex-facie in direct contravention with the principles of res judicata.
(Para 66 to 68)
Ivan Rathinam V. Milan Joseph
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 115: (DoJ 28-01-2025)
