In matters where paternity is disputed, the court must have regard to Section 112 of the Evidence Act. This section is based on the well known maxim pater est quem nuptioe demonstrant (he is the father whom the marriage indicates). The presumption of legitimacy is this, that a child born of a married woman is deemed to be legitimate, it throws on the person who is interested in making out the illegitimacy, the whole burden of proving it. The law presumes both that a marriage ceremony is valid and that every person is legitimate. Marriage or affiliation (parentage) may be presumed, the law in general presuming against vice and immorality."
This section requires the party disputing the paternity to prove non-access in order to dispel the presumption. "Access" and "non-access" mean the existence or nonexistence of opportunities for sexual intercourse; it does not mean actual cohabitation".'
It is a rebuttable presumption of law that a child born during the lawful wedlock is legitimate, and that access occurred between the parents. This presumption can only be displaced by a strong preponderance of evidence, and not by a mere balance of probabilities.
In Smt. Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohammed Farooq, AIR 1987 SC 1049 the supreme court court held :
“Section 112 lays down that if a person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution and the mother remains unmarried, it shall be taken as conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at anytime when he could have been begotten. This rule of law based on the dictates of justice has always made the courts incline towards upholding the legitimacy of a child unless the facts are so compulsive and clinching as to necessarily warrant a finding that the child could not at all have been begotten to the father and as such a legitimating of the child would result in rank injustice to the father. Courts have always desisted from lightly or hastily rendering a verdict and that too, on the basis of slender materials, which will have the effect of branding a child as a bastard and its mother an unchaste woman."
Following the decision in Dukhtar Jahan, the supreme court in Gautam Kundu v.
The effect of this section is this: there is a presumption and a very strong one though a rebuttable one. Conclusive proof means as laid down under Section 4 of the Evidence Act and upheld the orders of CJM and High Court rejecting the application for blood test with an observation that “We find the purpose of the application is nothing more than to avoid payment of maintenance, without making any ground whatever to have recourse to the test. Accordingly the Special Leave Petition will stand dismissed.”
The supreme court sumarised the position as under:
(1) Courts in
(2) Wherever applications are made for such prayers in order to have roving inquiry, the prayer for blood test cannot be entertained.
(3) There must be a strong prima facie case in that the husband must establish non-access in order to dispel the presumption arising under section 112 of the Evidence Act.
(4) The Court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence of ordering the blood test; whether it will have the effect of branding a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman.
(5) No one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें