Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik AIR 2014 SC 932

NANDLAL WASUDEO BADWAIK V. LATA NANDLAL BADWAIK

ISSUE:

Whether the DNA test results could rebut the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
Whether the appellant could be absolved of the liability to pay maintenance for a child scientifically proven not to be his biological offspring?
To what extent modern scientific evidence, such as DNA testing, should override the conclusive presumption of legitimacy established under law?

RULE:

Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act provides a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage, which can only be rebutted if it is proven that the husband had no access to the wife during the period of conception.
DNA test results, being scientifically accurate, can serve as credible evidence to rebut the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 if they conclusively establish the absence of biological paternity.
When there is a conflict between legal presumptions and scientifically proven facts, scientific truth prevails in the interest of justice.

FACTS:

Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik (appellant) married Lata Nandlal Badwaik (respondent no. 1) on June 30, 1990, in Chandrapur and later on they separated due to strained relationship.
Lata filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, which the Magistrate dismissed on December 10, 1993.
Lata subsequently filed a fresh application under Section 125 CrPC, seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter, Netra alias Neha (respondent no. 2), alleging cohabitation with Nandlal from June 20, 1996, for two years, during which she became pregnant.
Nandlal denied the claims, asserting no physical relationship with Lata after 1991 and disputing the paternity of Netra.
The Magistrate ruled in favor of Lata, granting maintenance of ₹900 per month to Lata and ₹500 per month to Netra.
Nandlal’s challenge to the Magistrate’s order failed in revision before the Sessions Court and in a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Bombay.
Nandlal then approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition, challenging the maintenance order and seeking a DNA test to establish paternity.
The Supreme Court initially allowed the DNA test, directing it to be conducted at the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpur. The DNA test report excluded Nandlal as the biological father of Netra.
On the respondents’ request, a second DNA test was ordered by the Supreme Court at the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. The second test confirmed the earlier result, excluding Nandlal as the biological father.
Lata contested the validity of the DNA tests, arguing that the statutory presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, should prevail, as she claimed Nandlal had access to her during the relevant period.

HELD:

The Supreme Court emphasized that while Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act provides conclusive proof of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage, this presumption is rebuttable if it can be shown that the husband had no access to the wife during the time of conception.
The DNA test reports, being scientifically accurate, demonstrated conclusively that Nandlal was not the biological father of Netra.
The Court held that scientific truth must prevail over legal presumptions when evidence is clear and reliable, as in this case.
The Court set aside the earlier orders directing Nandlal to pay maintenance for Netra, stating that the presumption under Section 112 had been rebutted by the DNA evidence.
However, the Court directed that no recovery of previously paid maintenance amounts be sought from the respondents.