Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.31 seconds)Section 7 in The Family Courts Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dipanwita Roy vs Ronobroto Roy on 15 October, 2014
In Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (supra), this Court directed the
child therein to undergo a DNA test. However, this direction was not
given in furtherance of a declaration as to the legitimacy of the child. On
the contrary, the proceedings therein were regarding a prayer for divorce
based on adultery. The DNA test was to be conducted to prove that the
wife was adulterous for the sake of obtaining a divorce. The appellant
therein did not desire to prove the illegitimacy of the child; it was merely
incidental. This Court explicitly stated that though the question of
legitimacy was incidentally involved, the issue of infidelity alone would
be determined by the DNA test, without expressly disturbing the
presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Renubala Moharana & Anr vs Mina Mohanty & Ors on 23 March, 2004
In Renubala Moharana v. Mina Mohanty (supra), this Court was
confronted with a set of facts similar to the present dispute. In the
captioned matter, the child therein was contended not to have been the
mother’s husband’s offspring, despite being conceived during the
subsistence of the marriage. The appellants therein filed a petition before
the Family Court “to declare that their son was the father of the minor
child, and not the mother’s husband.” This Court held that the Family
Court could not entertain any proceedings for a declaration as to the
legitimacy of any person without any claim on the marital relationship.
Union Of India & Others vs M/S. G.T.C. Industries Limited on 27 March, 2003
37. Having recognized the diverging pathways in the present analysis, it is
pertinent to first address the aspect of the right to privacy. At the outset,
a cursory reference to the decision in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v.
Union of India,34 reveals that privacy is concomitant to the right of the
individual to exercise control over his or her personality. Privacy
includes, at its core, the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity
of family life, marriage, procreation, the home, and sexual orientation.
Privacy also connotes a right to be left alone, as a corollary to the
33 Sharda, supra note 1.
Goutam Kundu vs State Of West Bengal And Anr on 14 May, 1993
In Goutam
Kundu v. State of W.B. (supra), this Court laid down the following
parameters to decide whether a court can order a DNA test for the
purposes of Section 112:
Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik vs Lata Nandlal Badwaik & Anr on 6 January, 2014
38 Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, (2014) 2 SCC 576.
Ashok Kumar vs Smt. Raj Gupta on 1 October, 2021
10. The Respondent has vehemently argued that ‘legitimacy’ and ‘paternity’
are different concepts—the former being rooted in law while the latter is
rooted in science. The High Court upheld this view and thereby,
4 Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta, (2022) 1 SCC 20.