2014 (1) TMI 1793 - SC - Indian Laws

Application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Legitimacy of child - Held that - As directed the Central Forensic Science Laboratory Hyderabad submitted its report and on that basis opined that the appellant Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik can be excluded from being the biological father of Miss Neha Nandlal Badwaik respondent No. 2 herein. As stated the DNA test is an accurate test and on that basis it is clear that the appellant is not the biological father of the girl- child. Appellant husband submits that this Court twice ordered for DNA test and hence the question as to whether this was a fit case in which DNA profiling should or should not have been ordered is academic. We find substance in the submission of Ms. Desai. Fact of the matter is that this Court not only once but twice gave directions for DNA test. The respondents in fact had not opposed the prayer of DNA test when such a prayer was being considered. It is only after the reports of the DNA test had been received which was adverse to the respondents that they are challenging it on the ground that such a test ought not to have been directed. We cannot go into the validity of the orders passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court at this stage. It has attained finality. Hence we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. The husband s plea that he had no access to the wife when the child was begotten stands proved by the DNA test report and in the face of it we cannot compel the appellant to bear the fatherhood of a child when the scientific reports prove to the contrary. We are conscious that an innocent child may not be bastardized as the marriage between her mother and father was subsisting at the time of her birth but in view of the DNA test reports and what we have observed above we cannot forestall the consequence. It is denying the truth. Truth must triumph is the hallmark of justice.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the paternity of the child.
2. Legitimacy and maintenance obligations under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
3. Validity and implications of DNA test results.
4. Legal presumptions versus scientific evidence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the paternity of the child:
The petitioner, the husband, contested the paternity of the child, respondent No. 2, and claimed that he had no physical relationship with his wife after 1991. The wife alleged that she lived with her husband from June 1996 and conceived during that period. The Magistrate initially granted maintenance to the wife and child, which was upheld in subsequent revisions and petitions. The Supreme Court allowed a special leave petition and ordered DNA testing to ascertain paternity.

2. Legitimacy and maintenance obligations under Section 112 of the Evidence Act:
The respondents argued that the husband had access to his wife during the time of conception, thus invoking Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which presumes legitimacy if the child is born during a valid marriage. The Court noted that the wife admitted leaving and rejoining the matrimonial home, but no specific finding was recorded regarding the husband's access during the conception period.

3. Validity and implications of DNA test results:
The Supreme Court ordered DNA tests twice, which conclusively excluded the petitioner as the biological father of the child. The respondents initially did not oppose the DNA test but later challenged its validity after adverse results. The Court emphasized that the DNA test is scientifically accurate and genuine, thus should be considered valid evidence.

4. Legal presumptions versus scientific evidence:
The Court examined the conflict between the legal presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act and the scientific evidence provided by the DNA test. The Court acknowledged that while Section 112 creates a presumption of legitimacy, this presumption is rebuttable with evidence to the contrary. The DNA test, being scientifically accurate, was deemed sufficient to rebut the presumption of legitimacy.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the DNA test results, which excluded the petitioner as the biological father, should prevail over the legal presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the petitioner could not be held liable for the maintenance of the child. The Court set aside the previous judgments directing maintenance payments to respondent No. 2, but allowed the payments already made to remain unrecovered.