Case Briefing: APARNA AJINKYA FIRODIA vs AJINKYA ARUN FIRODIA 2023
Case Title and Citation
Date of Judgment: February 20, 2023
Factual Background
The appellant (wife) and respondent (husband) were married on November 23, 2005. During the marriage, their second son, Master “X,” was born on July 17, 2013. In 2017, the husband filed for divorce, alleging the wife was in an adulterous relationship, claiming he discovered this conduct in September 2016. The husband privately conducted a DNA test in November 2016, which reportedly indicated a 0% probability of his paternity for Master “X”. In November 2020, the husband applied to the Family Court, Pune, seeking a judicial direction to subject Master “X” to an official DNA test to ascertain paternity. The Family Court allowed the application, and the High Court affirmed this order. The wife appealed these concurrent findings to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
- Whether the Family Court and the High Court correctly applied Section 112 of the Evidence Act in directing that a DNA test of the minor child, Master “X,” be conducted.
- Whether, if the appellant (wife) refuses to subject Master “X” to a DNA test, allegations of adultery against her could be determined by drawing an adverse inference as contemplated under Illustration (h) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and the order of the Family Court that directed the DNA test of Master “X”.
Reason for the decision
The Supreme Court provided the following reasons for setting aside the orders:
- Presumption of Legitimacy (Section 112): Section 112 of the Evidence Act provides a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage. This presumption can only be rebutted by establishing that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at the time the child could have been conceived. In the present case, the respondent-husband did not raise a plea of non-access; he admitted that Master “X” was born during the continuous cohabitation of the parties and during the subsistence of a valid marriage. Since no plea of non-access was raised, a strong prima facie case necessary to dislodge the presumption under Section 112 was not made out.
- DNA Test Necessity and Judicial Discretion: A DNA test of a minor child should not be ordered routinely in matrimonial disputes. DNA profiling is justified only in exceptional and deserving cases where it is indispensable to resolve the controversy and where there is no other mode of proving assertions. The husband had claimed to possess other evidence to prove adultery, such as call recordings/transcripts and the wife’s daily diary, meaning the DNA test was not the only route to ascertain the truth of the adultery claim.
- Adverse Inference (Section 114): The Court held that the issue of the child’s paternity is alien (collateral) to the issue of adultery on the part of the wife. Therefore, on the wife’s refusal to subject the child to a DNA test, no adverse inference could be drawn regarding the alleged adultery against her. By refusing the test, the mother is acting to protect the best interests and welfare of the child, and she should not be punished with an adverse inference for this protective action.
- Best Interests and Rights of the Child: The issue must be analyzed through the prism of the child. Ordering a DNA test interferes with the child’s bodily integrity and right to privacy and identity, violating the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. A finding of illegitimacy would cause psychological trauma, confusion, and social stigma to the innocent child. The child cannot be used as a “pawn” to prove the mother’s adultery.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the conclusive presumption of legitimacy conferred by Section 112 must be preserved. The direction to conduct a DNA test on Master “X” was unjustified as the husband failed to establish a prima facie case of non-access. The judgment allows the husband to lead other evidence to prove adultery in the divorce proceedings, but the child’s paternity cannot be questioned through a directed DNA test in this manner.
