'Privacy rights outweigh wanting to know one's father': SC
What's the story
The Supreme Court has ruled that a man's right to privacy outweighs another man's interest in proving paternity.
The court stressed that "privacy and dignity protect intimate life decisions, including sexual activity."
It added that there is a strong legal presumption under the law, a husband is the father of his wife's child during their marriage.
Directing DNA test on adultery allegations would violate these rights, it added.
Case details
Case background and court's stance on paternity
The ruling came in a case where a 23-year-old sought maintenance from a man he claimed was his biological father, born out of an alleged extramarital affair during his mother's marriage.
The court said that forcing the alleged paramour to to submit a DNA test would be a violation of his privacy and dignity.
"That scrutiny...can irreversibly affect a person's social and professional life...he has the right to undertake certain actions...including refusing to undergo a DNA test," the judgment stated.
Legal presumption
Court's view on DNA tests and paternity presumption
The Supreme Court also rejected Kerala High Court's view that paternity can be determined independently of legitimacy.
It clarified that "legitimacy and paternity are intertwined concepts."
The court noted that scientific advancements have made it easier to prove non-paternity, however, DNA tests are sanctioned sparingly.
It cited Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which presumes a husband is the father unless non-access is proved.
Misuse warning
Court's caution against misuse of paternity claims
Non-access needs to be proved with evidence of impossibility, not just inability, for marital relations.
In this case, no evidence was found to rebut the presumption of legitimacy.
"When the law provides for a mode to attain a particular object, that mode must be satisfied. When the evidence submitted does not rebut this presumption, the court cannot subvert the law to attain a particular object, by permitting a roving inquiry into a person's private life," the bench said.
Case
Backstory on the case
The woman was married to another man when the child was born in 2001. The mother claimed the appellant fathered the child.
She divorced her husband in 2006 and asked the Municipal Corporation of Cochin to name the appellant as the child's father, but they refused.
She then filed a petition in a munsiff court in 2007 seeking a declaration that the appellant is the child's father. The plea was denied by the munsiff court and the Kerala High Court.