Husband Denies Marriage, Punjab & Haryana HC Allows Major Child's Paternity Test To Determine Maintenance Liability Towards Alleged Wife

In connection with a woman's maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed DNA test of her major son to determine his paternity which will assist the Court in determining "whether an intimate relationship, in the nature of marriage", existed between the contesting husband and wife.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said,

"this Court is of the considered view that where being labelled as illegitimate or unchaste is not a concern, there is no reason for the Courts not to rely on dependable and accurate science in order to arrive at the truth and do complete justice instead of taking recourse to presumptions. At the time of making of statutes such as the Evidence Act, the science and the technology were not as advanced as they are today."

For the law to be relevant and maintain its dynamic nature, it must keep up with the times and reflect the contemporary social realities. Therefore, proof based on accurate scientific testing must take precedence over conclusive proof as envisaged under law, it added.

"The result of the paternity test would also be of immense value in ascertaining whether respondent No.2 (wife) is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C," the Court opined.

These observations were made while hearing the man's plea challenging the order of a Family Court, whereby the application filed by his alleged wife, seeking DNA samples from him to ascertain paternity of the child in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, was allowed. 

Facts In Brief

It was submitted by the woman that the marriage was solemnised in 2003 as per the Hindu rituals. A son was also born in 2005. However, the relations between them became sour and her husband (petitioner) allegedly did not even inform about the birth of the child to his family. The petitioner allegedly not only refused the same but also gave her severe beatings and shunned her out. Thereafter, she began residing at her paternal house.

Later, the husband allegedly deserted his wife. In the maintenance proceeding before the Family Court, Petitioner categorically denied solemnisation of marriage and submitted that the child was not born out of their alleged wedlock.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Family Court has erred in directing DNA analysis to be conducted to establish paternity test of the petitioner as the same would not establish the factum of marriage.

After hearing the submissions, the Court said, "Section 112 of the Evidence Act provides for a presumption that a child being born during the continuance of a valid marriage would be a conclusive proof, in terms of Section 4 of the Evidence Act, of his legitimacy."

The Court said that the presumption exists to protect the interest of the wife and the child. "However, the respondents themselves have moved the said application as nothing is available on the record to prove the factum of marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 (wife) In the absence of proof of the subsistence of a valid marriage, the presumptions stands diluted, necessitating the conduction of a DNA test," the judge added.

The present case the Court noted, "being one of complete denial qua existence of any kind of relationship between the petitioner and the respondents, the eminent need test, as culled out in Dipanwita Roy(supra) stands adequately satisfied as it would not be possible for the Court to ascertain the facts without a DNA test. Since existence of a relationship is sine qua non for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it becomes all the more pertinent to establish the same."

Legislative Intent Behind Section 125 CrPC

The Court said that it is "required to conduct the maintenance proceedings while being alive to the legislative intent behind the provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C in its true spirit, which is to provide speedy assistance and social justice to women, children and infirm parents. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. were enacted as a measure to further social justice and protect dependent women, children and parents, which also fall within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India."

The Courts must endeavour to realise the purpose behind Section125 Cr.P.C. by being conscious of the practical realities of society. A hypertechnical view regarding the same would allow the avoidant partner to twist the law to their benefit and leave the less affluent partner to unjustly suffer, it added.

Justice Brar opined that, strict proof of marriage cannot be made a condition precedent for claiming maintenance under the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C., as it would be antithetical to the legislative intent behind the same.

Adding that "any evidence that could illuminate the truth would be relevant to adjudication of the present controversy as it would assist the Court in ascertaining the truth and provide fair trial to both the parties," the bench said, "denial of an opportunity to either party to present the best available evidence in support of their respective claims, would be in direct violation of the right to free and fair trial."

The Court highlighted that, while it is trite that the result of the paternity test in the instant case would be of little value in establishing the existence of marriage between the parties, however, the same would greatly assist the Family Court in at least assessing whether an intimate relationship, in the nature of marriage, existed between them, which would negate the principal claim of the petitioner.

"The respondents have placed on record the Aadhar Card and Passport of respondent No.2, which reflects the name of the petitioner as his father. This factum coupled with a positive finding of the DNA test would conclusively establish the liability of the petitioner to maintain respondent No.2 and also strengthen the case of respondent No.1," said the Court.

Consequently, the Court upheld the decision of the Family Court and the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Talwar, Advocate and Mr. Akhilesh Barak, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the respondents.

Title: XXXX v. XXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 224