1993 (5) TMI 191 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the child under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
2. Admissibility and necessity of a blood group test to determine paternity.
3. Legal provisions and precedents regarding blood tests in paternity disputes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Child under Section 112 of the Evidence Act:
The court emphasized that Section 112 of the Evidence Act provides a strong presumption of legitimacy for a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage. The section states that if a person is born during the lawful wedlock, it is conclusive proof of legitimacy unless non-access between the parents can be proven. The court noted that this presumption is based on the maxim "pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant" (he is the father whom the marriage indicates), and it places the burden of disproving legitimacy on the party challenging it.

2. Admissibility and Necessity of a Blood Group Test to Determine Paternity:
The appellant sought a blood group test to disprove paternity, arguing that medical advancements make such tests reliable. However, the court held that blood tests are not conclusive of paternity and cannot be ordered as a matter of course. The court referenced various precedents, including the cases of Polavarapu Venkteswarlu and Vasu v. Santha, which established that blood tests cannot be compelled without consent and that they are not sufficient to override the presumption under Section 112.

3. Legal Provisions and Precedents Regarding Blood Tests in Paternity Disputes:
The court reviewed the legal framework and precedents in India and other jurisdictions, including England and the United States. It noted that while blood tests are used in paternity cases in other countries, Indian law does not have specific provisions for compelling such tests. The court cited several cases, such as Hargavind Soni v. Ramdulari and Raghunath v. Shardabai, which highlighted the limitations and legal constraints on ordering blood tests. The court also emphasized that no one can be compelled to provide a blood sample, and adverse inferences from refusal are limited.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant's application for a blood test was primarily an attempt to avoid paying maintenance and lacked a substantial basis. It upheld the High Court's decision, which confirmed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's order rejecting the blood test application. The court reiterated that:
1. Courts in India cannot order blood tests as a matter of course.
2. Applications for blood tests cannot be entertained for roving inquiries.
3. A strong prima facie case of non-access must be established to dispel the presumption under Section 112.
4. The consequences of ordering a blood test, such as potentially branding a child as illegitimate and the mother as unchaste, must be carefully considered.
5. No one can be compelled to give a blood sample for analysis.

The court dismissed the criminal appeal and allowed the second respondent to withdraw the maintenance amount without furnishing any security. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed.