Case Note & Summary
The revision application was filed by Mr. Pramod Purushottam Sathe (applicant) challenging the order dated 16th February, 2016 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 27th Court, Mulund, Mumbai, rejecting his application (Exhibit-18) for a DNA test of respondent No. 2 (his son) in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The applicant also challenged the order dated 20th December, 2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, dismissing his criminal appeal. The respondents were the applicant's wife (respondent No. 1) and son (respondent No. 2), along with the State of Maharashtra. The parties were in a relationship since 1996, and their marriage was solemnized on 14th February, 2001. Respondent No. 2 was born on 10th March, 1998, i.e., before the marriage. The respondents filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act on 13th March, 2015, seeking reliefs under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, and 22. The applicant filed a reply denying the allegations and subsequently filed an application for a DNA test of respondent No. 2 to establish that he was not the biological father. The Magistrate rejected the application, and the Sessions Court upheld that decision. The High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, considered whether the courts below erred in rejecting the DNA test application. The court held that the issue of paternity cannot be decided collaterally in DV proceedings, which are summary in nature and intended to provide immediate relief to victims of domestic violence. The court also noted the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that the son was born during wedlock. The court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and dismissed the revision application.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Domestic Violence - Paternity - DNA Test - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 - The applicant-husband sought DNA test of his son to disprove paternity in DV proceedings. The Magistrate and Sessions Court rejected the application. The High Court held that the issue of paternity cannot be decided collaterally in DV proceedings, which are summary in nature and intended to provide immediate relief to victims of domestic violence. The court also noted the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that the son was born during wedlock. The revision was dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Presumption of Legitimacy - Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court observed that the son was born on 10th March, 1998, while the marriage was solemnized on 14th February, 2001, i.e., before marriage. However, the court did not elaborate on the applicability of Section 112 but noted that the paternity issue was not relevant for DV proceedings. (Para 2) C) Criminal Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope - The High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below, as no illegality or perversity was found. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in rejecting the application for DNA test of the son (respondent No. 2) to determine paternity in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Court rejecting the application for DNA test.
Law Points
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- Section 12
- Section 18
- Section 19
- Section 20
- Section 22
- DNA test
- paternity
- legitimacy
- presumption under Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- revisional jurisdiction
- scope of interference
