If Paternity Test is Denied Despite Proof of Couple’s Long Cohabitation, Child will be Stigmatised: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court recently upheld a lower court’s decision directing DNA testing of a man to establish the paternity of a child allegedly born during his long cohabitation with a woman.

Justice Mary Joseph noted that when a prima facie case is made for cohabitation between spouses and there is no material on record to show the alleged immoral life of any partner, then a prayer for DNA identification cannot be ignored.

“If an order of this nature were refused, it would have the effect of crippling the underage girl among the public. This would no doubt cast a social stigma on both the child and the mother as ‘illegitimate’ and ‘immoral,'” noted the Single Judge Panel.

The court was hearing a petition by a man challenging an order made by the Ernakulam Family Court, directing him to undergo a blood test for DNA verification.

The child’s mother presented to the court that she had fallen in love and the pair lived as husband and wife. While they were staying together, she became pregnant with the man’s child but when she informed him, he took her back to her home. Although he promised her over the phone to marry her and also get pregnant, she later finds out that he married another woman.

After the birth of the child, for some time, the man kept both the woman and the child. But then he stopped sending money. After that, the woman had to ask the authorities for help.

The woman claimed that she had acquired the status of a wife since she had been in a prolonged state of cohabitation with the man, and his marriage to another woman was “eternally void”.

Meanwhile, the man claimed that the woman was notorious and would blackmail men for money. He also cited his right to privacy to stress that he could not be harassed by undergoing such a test.

The Supreme Court noted that there were recorded photographs, which at first glance made the case for the couple’s cohabitation. She also indicated that it was admitted that the man had paid 60,000 rupees to the woman as maintenance.

The Court stated that “If the defendant is not cohabiting with the first petitioner and the second petitioner is not born to him in the cohabitation as alleged, then no money needs to be paid to them as alimony allowance.”

It also indicated that an illegitimate child is also entitled to alimony allowance, for which paternity must be established. Accordingly, the court denied the man’s petition against the lower court’s order.