Doctrine Of 'Paternity' By Estoppel: Kerala High Court Says Child's Parentage Can't Be Challenged When Conduct Proves Otherwise

The facts of the case were that in 2022, the petitioner approached the Family Court seeking DNA test stating that he reasonably suspects the minor child's paternity. The Family Court observed that the petitioner suppressed material fact that he had entered into an agreement with the child's mother wherein he accepted the paternity. It thus dismissed petitioner's prayer to undergo DNA test. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 seeking a declaration that he was not the father of the minor child.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P M Manoj applied the principle of doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel by relying on by Pennsylvania Supreme Court in T.E.B. v. C.A.B. v. P.D.K. Jr. to state that if a man cannot be permitted to deny child's parentage if he has held out be a child's father through his conduct.

The Court further relied upon Brinkley v. King to state that the doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel was based on the public policy that children should be secure in knowing who their parents are. The Court further observed that a child would face psychological trauma if informed that a person who has bonded and acted with the child as a parent was in fact not his father.

The Court relied upon Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to observe that the State has to preserve the familial identity and family relations a child. The Court went on to observe that the Apex Court in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023) referred to Article 8 of the Convention to state that long-accepted notions of a child's parentage must not be challenged frivolously.

In the present case, the mother of the child was working as a teacher in a school conducted by the petitioner-father. The mother was accommodated in the residential home of the petitioner where she was allegedly subjected to rape on several occasions, after which she became pregnant. She filed a complaint under Section 376 of the IPC levelling allegations of rape against the petitioner as early as in 2013. The parties then negotiated a settlement where the petitioner agreed to pay maintenance and the mother agreed to drop all charges against the petitioner. Based on the agreement, the petitioner was acquitted of rape charges.

Thereafter, the child filed a maintenance application through a guardian before the Family Court and sought for paternity test which the petitioner opposed. The Family Court passed ex parte order in 2016 in the maintenance case since the petitioner refused to appear for a DNA test. He was ordered to pay rupees 5000 as maintenance to the minor child from 2014 and was also granted visitation rights. Thus from 2014, the petitioner was paying maintenance to the child and was also having visitation rights. It was only in 2022 that he filed a fresh petition seeking a DNA test stating that he is not the father of the child.

Considering the entire facts, the Court stated that the petitioner had suppressed material facts. It held thus: “ The overwhelming materials against the petitioner clearly disentitle the petitioner from challenging the paternity of his child.”

Accordingly, the Court held that the Family Court rightly denied the petitioner's prayer for a paternity test.

As such, the petition was dismissed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates M Sasindran, Satheeshan Alakkadan

Counsel for Respondents: Advocate Athul Babu, Pranoy K Kottaram

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 339

Case Title: A J Stephen v Rosemariya

Case Number: OP (FC) NO. 284 OF 2024

Click here to read/download Order