Ivan Rathinam vs. Milan Joseph
Citation: 2025 INSC 115; Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Background
The dispute centered on the paternity and legitimacy of Milan Joseph, born in 2001 during the subsistence of his mother’s marriage to Raju Kurian. Despite the marriage, Milan’s mother claimed that Ivan Rathinam was Milan’s biological father, allegedly resulting from an extramarital relationship. Milan Joseph sought a declaration of paternity and filed a maintenance petition against Ivan Rathinam, invoking Section 125 of the CrPC (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and challenging the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
Key Legal Issues
Whether a child born during a valid marriage can rebut the presumption of legitimacy and seek a declaration of paternity against a third party.
The scope of DNA testing in paternity disputes.
Whether the Family Court could revive a maintenance petition after the issue of legitimacy had been settled.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Presumption of Legitimacy:
The Court reaffirmed that Section 112 of the Evidence Act creates a conclusive presumption that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate, unless it is shown that the husband and wife had no access to each other at the relevant time. This presumption extends to paternity, making the husband the legal father unless non-access is proven.
DNA Testing:
The Court held that DNA tests cannot be ordered arbitrarily and should be directed only in exceptional cases where non-access is credibly alleged. Forcing a DNA test in this case would infringe the fundamental right to privacy and dignity, as recognized in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. The Court distinguished prior cases where DNA tests were consented to or justified by compelling evidence.
Doctrine of Res Judicata:
The Court found that the issue of legitimacy had already been conclusively settled in earlier proceedings, and the Family Court erred in reviving the maintenance petition. Re-litigation of settled issues was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Maintenance Claims:
The Court clarified that maintenance can be claimed only from a legally recognized father. Since Milan was conclusively presumed to be the legitimate son of Raju Kurian, no claim could lie against Ivan Rathinam.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed Ivan Rathinam’s appeal, set aside the orders of the Kerala High Court and Family Court, and quashed the maintenance proceedings. The Court held that Milan Joseph is presumed to be the legitimate son of Raju Kurian, and no further litigation regarding his paternity or maintenance claims against Ivan Rathinam would be entertained.
Significance
This judgment reaffirms the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, clarifies the limited circumstances for ordering DNA tests, and upholds the finality of judicial decisions through the doctrine of res judicata, thereby protecting the rights to privacy and legal certainty in family law disputes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments