The Kerala High Court recently upheld the decision of a lower court issuing directions for the 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 by 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 this nature is declined, it would have the impact of bastardising the minor girl child among the public. Undoubtedly that would cast a social stigma upon the child as well as the mother respectively as ‘bastard’ and ‘immoral’,” noted the single judge bench.
The court was dealing with a plea filed by a man challenging an order passed by a family court in 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 but when she informed him, he sent her back to her place. Though over the telephone, he promised to marry her and also bore the expenses, she later found out that he had married another woman.
After the child’s birth, for some time, the man maintained both the woman and the child. But, subsequently, he stopped sending money. Thereafter, the woman had to seek help from the authorities.
The woman claimed that since she had been in a long cohabitation with the man, she had gained the status of a wife and his marriage solemnised with another woman was ‘void ab initio’.
The man, meanwhile, claimed that the woman had an ill reputation and would blackmail men 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 the couple’s cohabitation. It also noted that it was an admitted fact that the man had paid Rs 60,000 to the woman as maintenance.
“If the respondent was not in cohabitation with the first petitioner and the second petitioner was not born to him in the cohabitation as contended, he need not pay any money to them as maintenance allowance,” the court stated.
It also pointed out that an illegitimate child is also eligible for maintenance allowance, for which paternity is a relevant aspect that has to be established. Accordingly, the court dismissed the man’s petition against the lower court’s order.
Comments
0 comment