2001 (5) TMI 955 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court sets high bar for disproving paternity presumption under Evidence Act

Smt. Kamti Devi Versus Poshi Ram

The Supreme Court clarified the standard of proof required to rebut the conclusive presumption of paternity under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. ... - Issues Involved:The standard of proof required to displace the conclusive presumption in favor of paternity of a child born during a valid marriage.Summary:The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the standard of proof needed to rebut the conclusive presumption of paternity under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. The case involved a husband disputing the paternity of a child born during his marriage. The Court examined whether non-access must be proven beyond reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of probabilities. The legislative recognition of the maxim 'Pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant' led to the formulation of Section 112, which establishes a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage, unless it can be shown that the parties had no access to each other at the time of conception. The Court emphasized that the burden lies on the party seeking to rebut the presumption to prove the negative of non-access by both parties. The law prioritizes protecting children from being illegitimized due to parental issues.The Court clarified that the term 'access' in Section 112 refers to the opportunity for marital intercourse, not necessarily actual sexual intercourse. Despite advancements in DNA testing, the law still upholds the conclusiveness of Section 112, even if a DNA test proves otherwise. The Court highlighted the delicate balance between protecting innocent children from social stigma and ensuring the accuracy of paternity determinations. The burden on a husband to prove non-access should be higher than the standard of preponderance of probabilities but lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt, to safeguard against unjustly illegitimizing children.Referring to precedent, the Court emphasized that the presumption of paternity can only be rebutted by a strong preponderance of evidence, not merely a balance of probabilities. In the present case, the first appellate court concluded that the husband had convincingly proven his lack of access to the mother of the child for a significant period before the child's birth. As the first appellate court's finding was based on thorough evaluation of evidence and no substantial question of law arose, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision.