Supreme Court: Family Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Paternity Claims Arising from Extramarital Affairs, Affirms Conclusive Presumption of Legitimacy Under Section 112 of Evidence Act
Safiya Malik
In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment that permitted the revival of maintenance proceedings and a potential DNA test to determine paternity. The court upheld the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, stating that paternity is determined by legitimacy unless non-access between spouses is proven. It ruled that reopening maintenance claims after earlier findings on legitimacy violated the principle of res judicata. The court quashed the revival of the maintenance petition and affirmed the child’s legal status as the legitimate son of his mother’s former husband.
The dispute originated in 2007 when the respondent, Milan Joseph, and his mother sought a declaration that Ivan Rathinam (appellant) was the respondent’s biological father, replacing Mr. Raju Kurian, the mother’s former husband. The respondent was born in 2001 during the subsisting marriage between his mother and Mr. Kurian, who was recorded as the father in municipal records. After their divorce in 2006, the mother alleged an extramarital relationship with the appellant and sought to alter the birth records.
The respondent filed a civil suit (OS No. 425/2007) before the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, seeking a declaration of paternity and a DNA test. The court initially directed the appellant to undergo testing but later dismissed the suit in 2009, citing Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which presumes a child born during marriage as legitimate unless non-access is proven. Concurrently, a maintenance petition (MC No. 224/2007) under Section 125 CrPC was filed before the Family Court, Alappuzha, which closed it in 2010 pending the civil suit’s outcome.
After appeals upheld the dismissal of the civil suit, the respondent revived the maintenance petition in 2015, claiming financial hardship. The Family Court permitted revival, stating it had exclusive jurisdiction over maintenance and legitimacy under the Family Courts Act, 1984. The Kerala High Court upheld this in 2018, distinguishing paternity from legitimacy and allowing a DNA test.
The appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing that legitimacy under Section 112 was conclusively established, barring maintenance claims against a third party. The respondent contended that paternity and legitimacy are distinct, and DNA testing was essential for the child’s rights.
The Supreme Court examined the interplay between legitimacy and paternity, jurisdictional competence, and res judicata. Key observations include:
- Legitimacy and Paternity:
The court stated, “Legitimacy determines paternity under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, until the presumption is successfully rebutted by proving ‘non-access.’” It rejected the High Court’s distinction between the two concepts, noting that “the presumption of legitimacy is equivalent to paternity unless non-access is proven through cogent evidence.”
Referring to precedents like Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B. and Sharda v. Dharmpal, the court observed, “DNA tests may be ordered only if a strong prima facie case of non-access is made out. Allegations of infidelity or adultery, without proof of non-access, cannot displace the statutory presumption.”
- Jurisdiction of Civil Courts:
The court held that the Munsiff Court validly entertained the original suit, as it pertained to legitimacy, not matrimonial rights. It noted, “The Family Court’s exclusive jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act applies only to matrimonial causes. A declaration of paternity arising from an extramarital relationship falls outside this scope.”
- Res Judicata:
The court ruled that the revival of the maintenance petition violated finality principles. It stated, “The High Court’s 2011 decision affirming legitimacy attained finality. Reopening the issue under the guise of maintenance proceedings is barred by res judicata.”
- Balancing Rights:
Addressing privacy concerns, the court observed, “Forcing a DNA test based on unsubstantiated allegations infringes the appellant’s right to dignity and privacy under Article 21. Social stigma from branding a child illegitimate outweighs speculative claims of biological parentage.”
The Supreme Court issued the following orders:
- “The Impugned Judgment of the High Court dated 21.05.2018 and the Family Court’s order dated 09.11.2015 are set aside.”
- “The proceedings in MC No. 224/2007 before the Family Court, Alappuzha, stand quashed.”
- “The respondent is conclusively presumed to be the legitimate son of Mr. Raju Kurian.”
- “Any claim of paternity against the appellant is negated.”
Case Title: Ivan Rathinam vs. Milan Joseph
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4917/2018]
Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
[Read/Download order]
