A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (Crim. App. No. 413 of 2025) addressed whether the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 conclusively determines paternity until displaced by proof of non-access, and whether a Family Court may reopen maintenance proceedings to determine paternity despite earlier civil determinations. The panel (Surya Kant, J.) held that legitimacy determines paternity under s.112 unless rebutted by cogent evidence of impossibility of access; access requires only a possibility/opportunity for intercourse, while non-access means impossibility.

The Court emphasised that DNA tests may be ordered only if:

(i) the existing evidence shows insufficiency to decide legitimacy, and

(ii) a proportionality/balance-of-interests test (including rights to privacy and dignity under Art. 21) favours such intrusive inquiry together constituting an “eminent need.”

The Family Court’s revival of a maintenance petition (2015) was held invalid where an earlier civil line of proceedings (culminating in a 2011 order) had already conclusively determined legitimacy: the second round of litigation was barred by res judicata. The Court thus set aside the High Court and Family Court orders, upheld the Munsiff/Sub-Judge findings that non-access was not shown, quashed the revived maintenance proceedings, and held the respondent to be presumed the legitimate son of Mr. Raju Kurian.

Keywords: Section 112, legitimacy, paternity, non-access, DNA test, privacy (Art.21), Family Courts Act ss.7–8, maintenance (s.125 CrPC), res judicata, balancing of interests.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

This appeal arises from protracted inter-forum litigation concerning whether a person born during a valid marriage is conclusively the husband’s child under s.112, and whether a later Family Court maintenance proceeding can reopen paternity notwithstanding final civil findings. The factual matrix: the respondent was born in 2001 while his mother was married to Mr. Raju Kurian (married 1989).

The mother later asserted extra-marital relations with the appellant (Ivan Rathinam) and sought:

(i) a civil declaration substituting the appellant as father in birth registers and

(ii) a DNA test; concurrently a maintenance petition (s.125 CrPC) named the appellant as alleged biological father.

Lower fora produced a sequence: Munsiff directed paternity test (2007), High Court intervened, review/disposal, Munsiff dismissed Original Suit (15.10.2009) for failure to prove non-access, Family Court kept maintenance in abeyance (05.02.2010) subject to civil appeal outcome, Sub-Judge dismissed appeal (21.02.2011), High Court dismissed second appeal (28.10.2011) that order attained finality. In 2015 the Family Court revived maintenance and impleaded Mr. Kurian; High Court (2018) upheld revival, treating paternity and legitimacy as separable and permitting enquiry. This Court granted leave and, after weighing statutory presumption, privacy/dignity rights, and the doctrine of finality, allowed the appellant’s appeal and restored the effect of the 2011 finality.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The mother and Mr. Raju Kurian married on 16.04.1989; a daughter was born in 1991 and the respondent on 11.06.2001. At birth, Mr. Kurian was entered as father in the municipal register. Marital separation occurred in 2003; divorce followed in 2006. The mother later sought to correct the birth register, claiming the appellant was the biological father due to an alleged extra-marital relationship. The mother and respondent filed Original Suit OS No. 425/2007 for declaration of parentage and mandatory injunction; an application for DNA followed. The Munsiff directed DNA (03.11.2007), which triggered High Court writ (setting aside that direction) and subsequent review; the Munsiff ultimately dismissed the Original Suit (15.10.2009) on the ground that non-access was not proved.

The Family Court stayed maintenance (05.02.2010), conditioned on civil appeal success. Appeals to Sub-Judge and High Court failed (orders of 21.02.2011 and 28.10.2011); those rulings were not challenged further and therefore acquired finality. In 2015 the respondent sought revival of maintenance citing grave medical and financial need; the Family Court revived it (09.11.2015), leading to the High Court upholding revival (21.05.2018). This appeal challenges that revival and the High Court’s position that paternity and legitimacy are independent and that Family Court jurisdiction could reopen the matter.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the presumption of legitimacy under s.112 conclusively determines paternity unless displaced by proof of non-access?
ii. Under what circumstances can a court order a DNA test — what is the threshold of “eminent need” and how should competing Art.21 interests be balanced?
iii. Whether a Family Court may revive maintenance proceedings to determine paternity when civil courts have earlier finally adjudicated legitimacy (res judicata)?
iv. Whether the Munsiff and Sub-Judge had jurisdiction to try the Original Suit despite the Family Courts Act’s exclusivity clauses?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellant argued:

(i) s.112 creates a conclusive presumption making the husband the legal father unless non-access (impossibility) is proved; mere allegations of adultery or multiple access cannot displace this;

(ii) DNA tests must be sparingly ordered they impinge privacy and dignity and may stigmatise mother/child;

(iii) the Original Suit was decided finally across three levels the Family Court’s 2015 revival flouted both the Family Court’s own condition and res judicata.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

Counsel for respondent urged:

(i) paternity (biological fact) is analytically distinct from legal legitimacy and a civil presumption should not foreclose scientific inquiry in maintenance proceedings;

(ii) the child has a right to know biological parentage and claim maintenance;

(iii) Family Court under s.7(e),(f) of the Family Courts Act may inquire into paternity when maintenance is at issue; the 2010 condition was legally unsustainable.

H) JUDGMENT 

The Court rejected the High Court’s separation of legitimacy and paternity in functional effect. Interpreting s.112, the Court held that a child born during subsistence of marriage is conclusively presumed to be the husband’s unless non-access (impossibility, not mere difficulty) is established. Access under s.112 requires only that spouses had opportunity; simultaneous or multiple access (i.e., extra-marital relations) does not itself displace the presumption. Following precedents (e.g., Sharda v. Dharmpal, Goutam Kundu), the Court reiterated strict parameters for DNA directions: courts cannot direct tests as routine; there must be a strong prima facie case of non-access; consideration of consequences (branding, stigma) and voluntariness is vital. Balancing under Art.21 (privacy, dignity) requires satisfying Puttaswamy’s tripartite test (legality, need, proportionality).

On facts, concurrent findings across Munsiff/Sub-Judge/High Court (2011) established access; documentary registers and failure to prove authorship of alleged confessional letters made the evidence sufficient to sustain the presumption. Ordering DNA merely on allegations would disproportionately injure appellant’s and mother’s privacy/dignity. The Family Court’s 2010 conditional suspension was a legitimate exercise of inherent power under CPC s.151 to avoid parallel proceedings; because the condition (successful civil appeal) was not satisfied and the civil issue had attained finality (2011), the 2015 revival contravened res judicata. Consequently the impugned High Court and Family Court orders were set aside; maintenance proceedings quashed; respondent is presumed legitimate son of Mr. Kurian.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

Section 112 creates a statutory mandate equating legitimacy with paternity unless a party proves non-access (impossibility). DNA tests are extraordinary — permitted only when evidence is insufficient and ordering the test is necessary and proportionate, after balancing Art.21 interests. The Family Court cannot revive maintenance proceedings to re-litigate an issue finally decided by competent courts; res judicata bars such revival.

b. OBITER DICTA

Court discussed comparative positions (UK, USA, Malaysia), emphasising global bias toward marital presumption and statutory frameworks that regulate DNA testing. Remarks underscored social harms to women and children from facile paternity probes and stressed judicial restraint.

c. GUIDELINES

• Courts should not order DNA tests as a matter of course; require strong prima facie material of non-access.

• Balance Art.21 privacy/dignity against child’s interest; failure of proportionality forbids test.

• Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over legitimacy proceedings only where a claim arises from marital relationship — they do not have unbounded exclusivity over third-party paternity suits.

• Use inherent powers to avoid parallel, duplicative litigation; a conditional pause on maintenance is permissible to avoid future conflict.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision reasserts the strength of s.112 and corrects an over-expansive approach to paternity/DNA orders by the High Court. Practically, it preserves evidentiary finality and deters relitigation where spouses lived together and no impossibility of access is shown. The Court’s insistence on non-access as the gateway to intrusive scientific probes strikes a balance between the child’s interests and adult privacy/dignity, particularly mindful of harms to women. The ruling is a measured reaffirmation that technological ease (DNA) cannot override statutory presumptions and settled public policy protecting family integrity, unless strict thresholds are satisfied. It provides clear guidance for trial judges: demand cogent evidence before ordering DNA, apply Puttaswamy balancing, and enforce finality (res judicata) to prevent serial forum shopping.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Sharda v. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 SCC 493.
ii. Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B., 1993 (3) SCC 418.
iii. Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, (2024) 7 SCC 773.
iv. Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, (2014) 2 SCC 576.
v. K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s.112.
ii. Family Courts Act, 1984, ss.7–8.
iii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s.125.
iv. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, s.151.