In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage is legally presumed to be the offspring of the husband, regardless of allegations of adultery or biological evidence to the contrary. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, set aside a Kerala High Court ruling that allowed a Family Court to reopen a paternity and maintenance dispute nearly a decade after the issue had been settled.
Background of the Case
The case, Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2025), arose from a long-drawn legal battle between the appellant, Ivan Rathinam, and the respondent, Milan Joseph, who claimed that Rathinam was his biological father. The respondent was born in 2001 during the marriage of his mother to Mr. Raju Kurian, but his mother later asserted that he was conceived from an extramarital relationship with the appellant.
In 2007, Milan Joseph’s mother sought to amend the birth records to reflect Rathinam as the father, a request denied by municipal authorities without a court order. Subsequently, a civil suit (OS No. 425/2007) was filed before the First Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, seeking a declaration of paternity and an injunction directing Rathinam to acknowledge the child as his own.
Simultaneously, the respondent filed a maintenance petition (MC No. 224/2007) under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking financial support from Rathinam. The Munsiff Court, however, rejected the paternity claim in 2009, holding that Milan Joseph was presumed to be the legitimate son of Mr. Raju Kurian, as his parents were married and cohabiting when he was conceived. This ruling was upheld by the Sub-Judge, Ernakulam, and later by the Kerala High Court in 2011, making it final.
However, in 2015, the respondent revived the maintenance petition before the Family Court, Alappuzha, arguing that his biological father (Rathinam) should be responsible for his support since Mr. Raju Kurian had abandoned him. The Family Court allowed the petition, ruling that paternity and legitimacy are separate issues, and the Kerala High Court upheld this view in 2018.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from Senior Advocates Romy Chacko (for the appellant) and Shyam Padman (for the respondent), decisively overturned the High Court’s ruling. The judgment addressed three key legal issues:
1. Legal Presumption of Legitimacy vs. DNA Evidence
The Court reaffirmed the principle under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which establishes that a child born during a valid marriage is conclusively presumed to be legitimate unless it is proven that the husband had no access to the wife at the time of conception.
Quoting previous judgments, the Court ruled:
“Even if DNA evidence indicates otherwise, the law prioritizes social legitimacy over biological truth. A legitimate child cannot be bastardized merely based on scientific findings, unless conclusive proof of non-access is established.”
Since the respondent’s mother and Mr. Raju Kurian were married and living together when the child was conceived, the presumption of legitimacy remained intact.
2. Jurisdiction of Civil and Family Courts
The Court clarified that while Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over legitimacy issues, the Munsiff Court and the Sub-Judge Court had the authority to determine paternity in the original suit. Since the legitimacy issue had already been settled in 2011, the Family Court could not reopen the matter under the guise of maintenance.
3. Bar of Res Judicata
The Court held that the revival of the maintenance petition in 2015 was barred by res judicata, as the Kerala High Court’s 2011 judgment had already settled the issue of paternity and legitimacy.
“A child may have a biological father, but law recognizes the husband as the legal father if the presumption of legitimacy stands. Once courts have ruled on this matter, reopening it undermines judicial finality and leads to endless litigation,” the bench observed.
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the Family Court’s 2015 order, thereby dismissing the maintenance claim against Rathinam. It held that:
1. Legitimacy determines paternity unless rebutted by clear proof of non-access.
2. DNA evidence alone cannot override the legal presumption of legitimacy.
3. The 2011 judgment was final, and reopening the case was impermissible.
4. The maintenance petition was invalid, as the respondent’s legitimate father was Mr. Raju Kurian.
