New Delhi: A 23-year-old man, who claimed his birth was a result of his mother's extramarital affair, and his mother were embroiled in a long-drawn legal battle with another man, who he claimed to be his biological father, wanted a DNA test to prove paternity to claim maintenance from the man.
However, the man consistently maintained that he never had sexual relations with the 23-year-old man's mother and moved the apex court against a Kerala High Court order, which did not grant him relief.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan on Tuesday brought down curtains on this convoluted case involving paternity and the notion of legitimacy, which spanned over two decades, and ruled that it is not correct to hold that a man's legitimate interest to know his father outweighs the infringement of another man's right to privacy and dignity.
The apex court stressed that an order necessitating a DNA test based on mere allegations of adultery would ultimately violate another man's right to dignity and privacy, and ruled that the former husband of the mother of the 23-year-old man was his legitimate father.
The 23-year-old man said he was facing multiple health issues and had undergone several surgeries, which he and his mother were unable to afford, and wanted maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that he was his biological father.
Justice Kant, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said: "The balance of interest does not support mandating a DNA test, as it is likely to have a disproportionately adverse impact on the appellant and the respondent's mother".
"As a result, there is no 'eminent need' for a DNA test……it is evident that the 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," said Justice Kant.
The top court noted that on one hand, courts must protect the parties' rights to privacy and dignity by evaluating whether the social stigma from one of them being declared 'illegitimate' would cause them disproportionate harm.
"On the other hand, courts must assess the child's legitimate interest in knowing his biological father and whether there is an eminent need for a DNA test," said the bench, adding that while permitting an enquiry into a person's paternity vide a DNA test, the court must be mindful of the collateral infringement of privacy.
Justice Kant said forcefully undergoing a DNA test would subject an individual's private life to scrutiny from the outside world. "That scrutiny, particularly when concerning matters of infidelity, can be harsh and can eviscerate a person's reputation and standing in society. It can irreversibly affect a person's social and professional life, along with his mental health," said Justice Kant.
The bench added that on account of this, he has the right to undertake certain actions to protect his dignity and privacy, including refusing to undergo a DNA test.
The bench said the effects of social stigma surrounding an illegitimate child make their way into the parents' lives as there may be undue scrutiny owing to the alleged infidelity. "It is in this backdrop that the appellant's right to privacy and dignity have to be considered," said the bench.
The bench said the 23-year-old man is already declared to be the legitimate son of a man who had married his mother. "The fishing enquiry, which he wants through the judicial process is seemingly, not meant to bring 'certainty' to an uncertain event. Rather, it is predominantly targeted to harm the Appellant's reputation. The Respondent knows well who is his 'father' as per the law," said the bench.
Citing Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the bench said the language of the provision makes it abundantly clear that there exists a strong presumption that the husband is the father of the child borne by his wife during the subsistence of their marriage, and added, "this section provides that conclusive proof of legitimacy is equivalent to paternity".
The bench said, in the case at hand, it is an admitted fact that when the man was born in 2001, his mother and his father were married. The bench said in fact, they had been married since 1989 and neither had ever questioned the validity of the marriage, and they were, admittedly, living under the same roof from 1989 till 2003, when they decided to separate.
The bench said 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.
The top court concluded that legitimacy determines paternity under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, until the presumption is rebutted by proving 'non-access'.
The apex court ruled that any claim by the 23-year-old-man based upon the perceived relationship of paternity qua the appellant stands negated and he is presumed to be the legitimate son of his mother's former husband.
In the high court, the 23-year-old man had argued that it was in his best interests that the petitioner undergo a DNA test, as he has the right to know his true parentage and accrue rights emanating therefrom, such as maintenance. The high court upheld this view and noted that though it is not in the interest of society to brand a child as 'illegitimate', the interest of the child to know his biological father and claim maintenance from him is overwhelming in comparison.
The mother and father of the 23-year-old man were granted divorce in 2006. Later, the woman moved before the Cochin Municipal Corporation to change the name of her son's father in the birth records. She allegedly told the authorities that the child was born out of an extramarital affair but the authorities said they could not change birth records without a court order.
In 2007, the court ordered the alleged biological father to undergo a DNA test, but the man got relief from the high court. In 2015, the son, who was represented by his mother, moved before a family court to revive an earlier maintenance petition. The high court in 2018, ruled in favour of the son, which was challenged by the man in the apex court.
