Adult's Reputation Can't Override Child's Right To Know Parentage: Delhi High Court Upholds DNA Test
The Delhi High Court has held that an adult's concern over reputational harm cannot outweigh a child's right to know their biological parentage, observing that “reputation cannot become a shield against truth” and that “children cannot become casualties of adult choices.”
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that rights and interests of children cannot be subordinate to the considerations of social stigma or reputational concerns of the adults, as the issue of their parentage also concerns their identity and has a bearing on their legal rights, including their claim for maintenance.
The Court made the observations while upholding a Family Court order directing DNA testing in a maintenance dispute where three children sought determination of paternity after a man denied any relationship with them.
The maintenance proceedings were initiated by a woman claiming that she had lived with the petitioner in a relationship akin to marriage and that three children were born from the relationship.
The petitioner claimed that he had been in a valid subsisting marriage since 1986 and denied having any relationship with the woman or the children.
On the other hand, the women and children relied upon photographs, family records, school documents, voter and ration cards, and witness testimony showing the petitioner as their father.
Vide the impugned order, the Family Court had directed DNA testing for determination of paternity. Challenging the order before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the DNA test was sought only to malign his family's reputation and that it would adversely affect the image of his legally wedded wife.
Rejecting his plea, the Court observed that the law cannot permit a citizen to invoke the right to personal liberty while, at the same time, rejecting the corresponding obligation of accountability.
Justice Sharma said that she cannot lose sight of the fact that the children born from the alleged union were entirely innocent and had no choice as to the circumstances of their birth or the union from which they were born. The Court said that their school records, identity documents and the social recognition showed the petitioner as their father.
Further, it was observed that the children were neither the authors of the circumstances of their birth nor of what transpired before or after their birth between the two adults whose relationship brought them into the world.
The Court said that if one of the alleged parents later seeks to avoid the consequences of his own choices, the law cannot permit the burden to be shifted onto the children and the consequences of such conduct must be borne by the adults themselves.
“Needless to state, when two adults choose to enter into a relationship and, from such association, children are born, the choices made by two adults cannot defeat or eclipse the rights of those children to know their biological parentage. The rights and interests of the children cannot be rendered subservient to the conduct of the adults from whose relationship they were born. Moreover, if a contrary view is to be adopted, it would lead to a situation where a person, whether a man or a woman, could, after having lived in a relationship outside a legally subsisting marriage or in a live-in relationship and having brought children into the world, subsequently deny parentage and leave the children to spend their entire lives in uncertainty regarding their identity and lineage. Such an approach would deprive the children of an answer to a question that goes to the root of their identity, i.e. who their biological parents are,” the Court said.
It added: “The right of a child to know his or her biological origins and parentage is also intrinsically connected with the child's identity and dignity. Therefore, where a serious and bona fide dispute regarding paternity arises and there exists prima facie material ordering such a DNA test, the Court cannot altogether foreclose a scientific examination solely because the relationship between the adults may not constitute a valid marriage in the eyes of law.”
In the end, Justice Sharma held that the issue before was not the validity or morality of the relationship between the adults, but whether the children were biologically fathered by the petitioner, since their right to identity and consequential legal rights could not be subordinated to an adult's fear of social embarrassment.
Title: RAVI KUMAR v. GEETA DEVI & ORS