2023 (2) TMI 1163 - SC - Indian Laws

Court rules against mandatory DNA test in family law case, upholding presumption of legitimacy. Protecting child's rights.

Aparna Ajinkya Firodia Versus Ajinkya Arun Firodia

Aparna Ajinkya Firodia Versus Ajinkya Arun Firodia - TMI Issues Involved:1. Presumption of Paternity under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act.2. Admissibility and necessity of DNA testing to determine paternity and allegations of adultery.3. Drawing adverse inference under Section 114(h) of the Indian Evidence Act.4. Best interests and rights of the child in the context of DNA testing.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Presumption of Paternity under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act:The law presumes that a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage is legitimate and the husband is the father unless it is shown that the parties had no access to each other at the relevant time. This presumption is conclusive unless rebutted by strong evidence. The Court emphasized that 'access' or 'non-access' means the opportunity for sexual relationship, not necessarily actual cohabitation. The presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 is based on public morality and policy, aiming to prevent unwarranted inquiries into the paternity of a child.2. Admissibility and Necessity of DNA Testing to Determine Paternity and Allegations of Adultery:The Court discussed that DNA testing, while scientifically accurate, should not be ordered routinely in matrimonial disputes. It should only be directed in cases where it is the only means to establish the truth, and there is no other way to prove the allegations. In this case, the respondent-husband had not raised a specific plea of non-access, nor had he established a strong prima facie case to justify a DNA test. The Court noted that the respondent claimed to have other evidence, such as call recordings and a diary, which could be used to prove the allegations of adultery without resorting to DNA testing.3. Drawing Adverse Inference under Section 114(h) of the Indian Evidence Act:The Court analyzed the interplay between Sections 112 and 114(h) of the Evidence Act. It held that Section 112 deals with conclusive proof of legitimacy, which cannot be rebutted by any amount of evidence unless non-access is proved. Section 114(h) allows the Court to draw an adverse inference if a party refuses to answer a question, but this is discretionary and not mandatory. The Court concluded that adverse inference under Section 114(h) cannot be drawn against the mother for refusing to subject the child to a DNA test, as it would compromise the child's best interests and privacy.4. Best Interests and Rights of the Child in the Context of DNA Testing:The Court highlighted the importance of considering the child's best interests and rights, including the right to privacy and identity. It emphasized that children should not be subjected to forensic/DNA testing frivolously, especially when they are not parties to the proceedings. The Court referred to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects children's rights to privacy, bodily integrity, and identity. It concluded that conducting a DNA test in this case would not serve the child's best interests and would cause unnecessary psychological harm and social stigma.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Family Court and the High Court that directed the DNA test. The Court held that the respondent-husband had not made out a prima facie case to justify the DNA test and that the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act remained intact. The Court also ruled that no adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant-wife for refusing the DNA test, and the allegations of adultery must be proved by other evidence. The judgment emphasized the protection of the child's rights and best interests, aligning with the principles of privacy and identity under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.