Read Time: 06 minutes
The man was claiming that the child’s mother was of loose character and the demand of DNA test was made only to harass him.
The Kerala High Court recently upheld the decision of the lower court issuing direction for DNA testing of a man to prove the paternity of a child, who was allegedly born during his long cohabitation with a woman.
The bench of Justice Mary Joseph observed that when a prima facie case of cohabitation of a couple is made and there is no material on record to show the alleged immoral life of any partner, then prayer for determination of DNA cannot be thrown aside.
"If an order of the nature is declined that would have the impact of bastardising the minor girl child among the public. Undoubtedly that would caste a social stigma upon the child as well as the mother respectively as ‘bastard’ and ‘immoral’," opined the single judge bench regarding the present case.
Court was dealing with a plea filed by a man challenging an order passed by Family Court, Ernakulam directing him to undergo a blood test for DNA verification.
The child's mother submitted before the court that she and the man fell in love and started living together as husband and wife. During their stay together, she conceived the man's child however, when she informed him about the same, he sent her back to her place. Though, over the telephone, the man promised her to marry her and also bore the expenses, but later she found out that he had married another woman.
After the birth of the child, for some time, the man maintained both the woman and the child, however, subsequently, he stopped sending the money. Thereafter, the woman had to seek help from authorities.
The woman claimed that since she had been in a long cohabitation with the man, therefore, she had gained the status as his wife and his marriage solemnised thereafter with another lady was ‘void ab initio’.
On the other hand, the man claimed that the woman had an ill reputation leading a loose life and she used to blackmail gentlemen for money.
He also cited his right to privacy to assert that he could not be subjected to the harassment of undergoing such a test.
The high court observed that there were photographs on record which prima facie made a case of couple's cohabitation. Court also noted that it was an admitted fact that the man had paid Rs 60000 to the woman as maintenance.
Court said, "If the respondent was not in cohabitation with the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner was not born to him in the cohabitation as contended by him, he need not have to pay any money to them as maintenance allowance".
Court also pointed out that an illegitimate child is also eligible for maintenance allowance for which paternity is a very relevant aspect to be established.
Accordingly, court dismissed the man's petition against the lower court's order.
Case Title: xxx v . xxx
Please Login or Register
