In a landmark ruling addressing the delicate issues of paternity and legitimacy, the Supreme Court today struck a balance between an individual’s right to determine his biological father and the other party’s right to privacy.

The bench, led by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, considered a two-decade-old case involving a 23-year-old man who sought to prove his paternity through a DNA test. He claimed that his birth resulted from his mother's extramarital affair and wanted to establish his biological father's identity in order to seek maintenance for his health-related expenses, as he and his mother struggled financially.

The case dates back to 2001, when the son was born. His mother, after divorcing her husband in 2006, approached the authorities to change the name of the child's father in the birth records, revealing an extramarital affair. However, the authorities refused without a court order. This led to a prolonged legal battle, with the mother and son seeking to establish the child's biological paternity.

The Court first ordered a DNA test in 2007, which was contested by the alleged biological father in 2008. The High Court ruled that such tests could only be mandated if it could be proven that the spouses did not have access to one another during the period of conception, citing Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which presumes that a child born during a valid marriage is the legitimate offspring of the husband.

In 2015, the son filed for maintenance, claiming his biological father had not been contributing to his medical and educational needs. The High Court ruled in his favor, emphasizing the child's right to maintenance, irrespective of legitimacy. The alleged father then took the matter to the Supreme Court.

During proceedings, the counsel for the biological father, Romy Chacko, argued that since the mother was married at the time of the son’s birth, the child was presumed to be legitimate, and therefore, maintenance could not be sought from another party. On the other hand, the son's lawyer, Shyam Padman, argued that paternity and legitimacy are distinct concepts, with the right to maintenance tied to biological paternity, regardless of legitimacy.

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, affirmed that the child’s birth occurred during the mother’s valid marriage, and the legitimacy presumption could only be rebutted with proof of non-access between the spouses. The court noted that even if an extramarital affair led to the child's birth, this did not automatically nullify the presumption of legitimacy.

Additionally, the Court emphasized the need to balance the son’s right to know his true parentage with the privacy rights of the man he claims is his father. It stated that mandatory DNA testing could subject the individual to unwarranted public scrutiny, potentially damaging his reputation and mental health. The Court also acknowledged the emotional distress such inquiries could cause to the child’s mother, underlining the importance of protecting the dignity and privacy of vulnerable women.

The Court concluded that, under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, the presumption of legitimacy stands unless disproven by conclusive evidence of non-access, thus rejecting the 23-year-old’s claim to maintenance from the alleged biological father.

With the case spanning two decades, the Court ordered that the matter be closed, reaffirming the presumption of legitimacy and reiterating that paternity cannot be determined by a mere desire for a DNA test without substantial evidence.