New Delhi/Allahabad, November 18, 2020: The Allahabad High Court today has ruled that a DNA test to establish a child’s paternity is the “most legitimate & scientific means” that can be used by a man to assert claims of his wife’s infidelity as well as the test is also the wife’s “most authentic way to establish that she had not been unfaithful, adulterous or disloyal”.

The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal observed that “The DNA test is the most legitimate & scientifically perfect means which the husband could use to establish his assertion of wife’s infidelity. Further, the DNA test should simultaneously be taken as the most authentic, rightful & correct means also with the wife for her to rebut the assertions made by the husband & to establish that she had not been unfaithful, adulterous or disloyal,”  while hearing a plea filed by one Smt Neelam that challenged an order (dated Sept 22, 2018) passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The ruling came while the Court was hearing a petition regarding whether a husband, in a divorce plea, can direct the wife to undergo a DNA test or refuse to undergo the test himself. 

The only issue was whether a Court in a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, filed by the husband on the ground of adultery, can direct the wife either to undergo a DNA test or refuse to undergo a DNA test. But in case she elects to undergo a DNA test, then findings of the DNA test will determine conclusively the veracity of accusation levelled by the petitioner-husband against her. 

It is further mentioned that in case the wife refuses to undergo a DNA test, then whether a presumption can be drawn by the Court against the wife that is to say whether report of DNA test is just a piece of expert evidence or a conclusive or a substantive piece of evidence.

On the other hand, the petitioner filed her objections & objected to the application filed by the husband seeking DNA test on the ground that no legal provision is mentioned in the application. She refuted the claim that there has been no cohabitation between the two since January 15, 2013. She claimed that she was tortured by her husband when she was pregnant & was also driven out of the matrimonial home. She gave birth to a male child on Jan 26, 2016.

Further, a plea of presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act too was raised by the petitioner. According to section 112 of the Evidence Act, birth during marriage is the conclusive proof of legitimacy.

Accordingly, while dismissing the plea, Justice Agarwal relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik Vs. Lata Nandlal Badwaik & another, wherein the husband’s plea was that he had no access to the wife when the child was begotten stood proved by the DNA test report. Hence, in the face of it, the apex court had said, “We cannot compel the appellant husband to bear the fatherhood of a child, when the scientific reports prove to the contrary.”

Thus, rejecting the pleas of the petitioner, the court declined to interfere in the order passed by the additional principal judge, family court, Hamirpur dated September 22, 2018, observing, “truth must triumph is the hallmark of justice”. “This court has therefore clearly opined that proof based on a DNA test would be sufficient to dislodge a presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act.”

The marriage between Neelam and Ram Asrey took place on April 28, 2004. Admittedly, three daughters were born from this wedlock.

According to the husband-respondent, he is not living with his wife, i.e., the petitioner since Jan 15, 2013, & there has been no resumption of cohabitation since then.

Further, on June 25, 2014, he (husband) had given customary divorce to the petitioner and has been paying maintenance to her since then. A male child was born to the petitioner on Jan 26, 2016, in her paternal house. Hence, the ground for the divorce was adultery.

The Court pronounced this judgment on Oct 21, 2020. 

News Courtesy:PIB | Hindu| DC | LE | LI | LO | IE | LL | PTI |ht | ET | UNI | DNA | FP | Jurist |IndToday|

Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced supplied by the concerned either as press release, press statement or via other source of information, websearch engines and internet and do not reflect views of Lawtime and hence Lawtime is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, India info Comm Network's website Lawtime.in is not responsible for any of the copy right violation or for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this news article

Comments

Name*:
Phone number:
Email address*:
Comments and questions*:
Enter web form code*: reload image * - required fields.