New Delhi, January 28, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India has ruled that family courts cannot entertain paternity claims arising from extra-marital affairs, reinforcing the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The apex court’s judgment in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2025) overruled a Kerala High Court decision that had allowed the revival of a maintenance petition based on a paternity claim.
The case revolved around a long-standing legal battle where the respondent, born during the subsistence of his mother’s marriage to Mr. Raju Kurian, sought to establish the appellant, Ivan Rathinam, as his biological father. The respondent’s mother had engaged in an extra-marital relationship and later attempted to amend the birth records to reflect Rathinam’s name as the father. After multiple rounds of litigation, the lower courts had rejected the paternity claim, upholding the presumption of legitimacy.
However, in 2015, the respondent sought to revive his maintenance petition in the Family Court, citing financial distress and medical issues. The Family Court ruled that it had exclusive jurisdiction to determine paternity as incidental to maintenance, a decision later upheld by the Kerala High Court.
Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court Judgment:
- Legitimacy Determines Paternity: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a child born within a valid marriage is conclusively presumed to be legitimate, unless non-access between the spouses is proven with cogent evidence.
- No DNA Test Without Strong Grounds: The Court reiterated that ordering a DNA test to determine paternity must be done sparingly and only when non-access is established, preventing unwarranted intrusions into privacy and dignity.
- Family Court Cannot Reopen Settled Paternity Issues: The judgment held that once legitimacy is conclusively determined, a family court cannot reexamine paternity under the guise of maintenance proceedings.
- Revival of Maintenance Petition Invalid: The Supreme Court ruled that the Family Court erred in reviving the maintenance petition, as the condition for reopening—dependent on a successful appeal against the legitimacy ruling—was never met.
- Principle of Res Judicata Applies: The Court found that the second round of litigation violated the principle of res judicata, as the legitimacy issue had already been conclusively settled in previous proceedings.
Legal and Social Implications
The ruling upholds the sanctity of the presumption of legitimacy and curtails potential misuse of paternity claims to extract financial benefits. By rejecting the plea for a DNA test, the Court also protected the right to privacy and dignity of individuals involved in such disputes.
The judgment sets a precedent that family courts must not entertain claims that indirectly challenge settled legitimacy under the pretext of maintenance disputes. This decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for similar cases where individuals attempt to establish paternity outside a marital relationship.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the legal principle that legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act remains paramount unless conclusively rebutted, ensuring stability in family law jurisprudence.
