Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

624.

24. Questions as to illegitimacy of a child, are only incidental to the claim of dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery or infidelity necessary. This is not a case where a DNA test is the only route to the truth regarding the adultery of the mother. If the paternity of the children is the issue in a proceeding, DNA test may be the only route to establish the truth. However, in our view, it is not so in the present case. The evidence of DNA test to rebut the conclusive presumption available under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, can be allowed only when there is compelling circumstances linked with 'access', which cannot be liberally used as cautioned by this Court in Dipanwita Roy (supra).

(ii) This Court is quite conscious of the fact that any frivolous claim of the husband or wife would have much adverse affect on the mental health of the child; though the husband has a right to prove adultery on the strength of cogent evidence against his wife.
(iii) This Court also observes that the DNA Paternity Test requires to be conducted only in exceptional cases, and therefore, the child cannot be used as a weapon to get divorce on ground of adultery, on the strength of outcome of a DNA Paternity Test.
(iv) This Court further observes that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (supra) that, "Allowing DNA tests to be conducted on a routine basis, in order to prove adultery, would amount to redefinition of the maxim, "Pater est [2023/RJJD/016587] (20 of 24) [CW-1015/2023] quem nuptiae demonstrant" which means, the father is he whom the nuptials point out. While dealing with allegations of adultery and infidelity, a request for a DNA test of the child, not only competes with the presumption under Section 112, but also jostles with the imperative of bodily autonomy. . . . .If the appellant does or refuses to do something, for the purpose of deriving a benefit to herself, an adverse inference can be drawn against her. But in her capacity as a mother and natural guardian if the appellant refuses to subject the child to DNA test for the protection of the interests and welfare of the child, no adverse inference of adultery can be drawn against her. By refusing to subject the child to DNA test, she is actually protecting the best interests of the child. For protecting the best interests of the child, the appellant-wife may be rewarded, but not punished with an adverse inference. By taking recourse to Section 114(h), the respondent cannot throw the appellant to a catch-22 situation. . . . .The child cannot be used as a pawn to show that the mother of the child was living in adultery. It is always open to the respondent husband to prove by other evidence, the adulterous conduct of the wife, but the child's right to identity should not be allowed to be sacrificed."