Child born in a valid marriage husband presumed father-DNA test denied

                                                            Case Title

Ivan Rathinam vs. Milan Joseph
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2025
Date: 28 January 2025
Judges: Justice Surya Kant & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Case Analysis

• Milan’s mother married Raju Kurian in 1989.

• They had a daughter in 1991 and Milan was born in 2001.
• His birth certificate showed Raju Kurian as father.
• Later, the mother claimed Milan was born from her relationship with another man – Ivan Rathinam.
• She asked the Cochin Municipal Corporation to change the father’s name, but they said only a court order can allow that.

First Round of Case

2007:

• Milan and his mother filed a civil suit asking to declare Ivan as Milan’s father and wanted a DNA test.
• The Munsiff Court allowed the DNA test.

Law Involved:
Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — says that if a child is born during a valid marriage, the husband is presumed to be the father unless it’s proven that he had no access to the wife at that time.

2008–2009:

• The Kerala High Court said:
  A DNA test can’t be ordered unless non-access is clearly proved (following Sharda v. Dharmpal, 2003).
• The Supreme Court agreed and dismissed the mother’s appeal.

2009–2011:

• The Munsiff Court later dismissed the case saying Milan’s mother and Raju Kurian were living together when he was born.
  So under Section 112, Milan is the legitimate child of Raju.
• The Subordinate Court and High Court confirmed this.
• The case became final in 2011.

Second Round of Litigation

• In 2015, Milan (now an adult) filed a case in the Family Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, asking maintenance from Ivan claiming he was the biological father.
• The Family Court reopened the case saying only Family Courts (under Sections 7 & 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984) can decide on legitimacy and maintenance.
• Ivan appealed to the High Court, but it supported the Family Court.
• Then Ivan went to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Key Questions

Does legitimacy automatically decide paternity under Section 112 Evidence Act?
Did the Civil Court have power earlier under Family Courts Act?
Can the same issue be reopened (res judicata, Section 11 CPC)?

Supreme Court’s Findings

1. Legitimacy = Paternity (Sec.112, Evidence Act)

• The Court said: if a child is born during a valid marriage, the husband is legally presumed to be the father.
• This presumption can only be broken by proving non-access, which wasn’t shown here.
• Since Milan’s mother and Raju Kurian lived together, Raju is his legal father — not Ivan.

2. No DNA Test (Article 21 – Constitution of India)

• Ordering a DNA test without strong proof would violate the Right to Privacy and Dignity under Article 21.
• The Court referred to K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women (2010), which say DNA tests can be done only in rare, necessary cases (“eminent need”).
• Here, there was already enough evidence, so DNA test was not allowed.

3. Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Valid (Family Courts Act, 1984)

• The Supreme Court said the Munsiff Court and Sub-Judge handled the case correctly.
• The Family Court was wrong to reopen it because the civil courts already had jurisdiction when the first case was filed.

4. Res Judicata Applies (Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908)

• The issue of Milan’s paternity was decided in 2011, so it cannot be opened again.
• Reopening it in 2015 was against the rule of res judicata (no re-litigation of settled cases).

Final Judgment

• Supreme Court allowed Ivan Rathinam’s appeal.
• Kerala High Court (2018) and Family Court (2015) orders were set aside.

Held That:

1. Milan is the legitimate son of Raju Kurian, not Ivan.
2. The maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC is quashed.
3. Legitimacy = Paternity unless non-access is proved (Sec.112 Evidence Act).
4. The case is closed forever — can’t be reopened (res judicata – Sec.11 CPC).

Judgment Takeaway

“Legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act conclusively determines paternity unless non-access is proved.
DNA test can’t be forced just on suspicion — privacy and dignity must be protected (Article 21).”