http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: GOUTAM KUNDU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/05/1993

BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) AHMADI, A.M. (J)

CITATION:  1993 AIR 2295            1993 SCR  (3) 917  1993 SCC  (3) 418        JT 1993 (2)   443  1993 SCALE  (2)994

ACT: % Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : S.  125-Maintenance-Granted to wife and  child-Paternity  of child-Disputed-Husband’s application for blood group test of wife and child-Held, purpose of application to avoid payment of maintenance--Prayer rightly refused by courts below. Evidence Act, 1872 Ss. 4, 112-Child born during continuance of valid  marriage- Paternity-Presumption-Held,   presumption   can   only    be displaced  by strong, preponderance of evidence and  not  by mere balance of probabilities. Blood  group test-Evidention value of-When can  be  ordered- courts  must  examine consequence of  ordering  blood  group test.

HEADNOTE: Respondent no. 2 was married to the appellant.  She went  to reside  with  her  parents in order to  prepare  for  Higher Secondary Examination.  In the meantime she conceived.   The appellant  and  his  family members  asked  her  to  undergo abortion but she refused, and a child was born to her. In  a petition under s. 125, Cr.  P.C. riled  by  respondent no.  2,  against her husband, the wife and  the  child  were granted maintenance. The appellant, disputing the paternity of the child, riled a criminal miscellaneous application for blood group test  (if respondent  no. 2 and the child.  It was claimed that if  it was established that he was not father of the child he would not  be liable to pay the maintenance.  The application  was dismissed.    Appellant’s  revision  application  was   also rejected by the High Court.  The appellant filed the  appeal by special leave. Dismissing the appeal, this Court 918 HELD:     1.1 Courts is India cannot order blood group  test as  a  matter of course.  Unlike the English law*  in  India there  is  no special statute governing this.   Neither  the Criminal  Procedure Code nor the Evidence Act  empowers  the court-; to direct such a test, *Affiliation  Proceedings Act., 1957; Family  Reforms  Act.,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

1969; Family Reforms Act, 1987. 1.2  Wherever applications are made for blood group test  in order   to  have  roving  inquiry,  the  prayer  cannot   be entertained. Bhartiraj  v. Sumesh Sachdeo & Ors: 1986 AIR Allahabad  259, approved. 2.1  Section  112 read with s.4 of the Evidence  Act  debars evidence  except in cases of non-access for  disproving  the presumption of legitimacy and paternity.  It is a rebuttable presumption  of  lam, that a child born  during  the  lawful wedlock is legitimate, and that access occurred between  the parties.  This presumption can only be displaced by a strong preponderance  of  evidence  and not by a  mere  balance  of probabilities. 2.2  There  must  be a strong prima facie case in  that  the husband  must  establish non-access in order to  dispel  the presumption arising under s. 112 of the Evidence Act. Vasu v. Santha: [1975] Kerala Law Times 533 and Raghunath v. Shardabai, [1986] AIR Bombay 388, referred to. Morris v. Davies  1837 5 Cl. & Fin. 163. cited. 3  The Court must carefully examine as to what would be  the consequence of ordering the blood test; whether it will have the  effect of branding a child as a bastard and the  mother as an unchaste woman. Smt.   Dikhtar Jahan v. Mohammed Faroog.  AIR 1987 SC  1049, referred to. 4.1  Blood  group  test is a useful test  to  determine  the question  of disputed paternity.  It can be relied  upon  by courts   as  a  circumstantial  evidence  which   ultimately excludes a certain individual as a father of the child. 4.2  No person can be compelled to give sample of blood  for analysis  and  no adverse inference can he drawn  against  a person on account of such refusal. 919 Hargovind Soni v. Ramdulari, AIR [1986] M.P. 57, approved. Vasu  v.  Santha, [1975] Kerala Law  Times  533,  Polavarapu Venkeeswarlu v.     Polavarapu Subbayya, [1951] 1 Madras Law Journal 58, referred to. Subayya   Gounder  v.  Bhoopala,  AIR  [1959]  Madras   396; Venkateswarlu  v.  Subbayya, AIR [1951]  Madras  910;  Hukum Chand  Boid v. Kamalan-and Singh, (1905) ILR. 33  Cal.  927, cited. Wilson  v.  Wilson, Lancet [1942] 1.570; Re L 1968  [1]  All England  Reports 20; B.  R. B. v. J.  B., [1968] 2 All  Eng. Reports 1023, referred to Tauylor’s ’Principles and Practice of Medical  Jurisprudence (Vol.   2);  ’Medical  Jurisprudence  and  Toxicology   (8th Edition) by Rai Bahadur Jaising P. Mod, cited. ‘Forensic Sciences’ edited by Cyril H. Wecht, referred to. 5.   In the instant case the purpose of the application  for blood  group test was nothing more than to avoid payment  of maintenance,  without  making any ground  whatever  to  have recourse  to  the  test.   The  High  Court  was  right   in confirming  the  order  of the  court  below  rejecting  the application.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 443  of 1993. From  the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.92 of  the  Calcutta High Court in Crl.  Revision No. 800/92. A.K.  Sen, S.C. Ghosh, Rajiv K. Dutta and B.B. Tawakley  for the Appellant.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

Amlan Ghosh and Ranjan Mukherjee for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN, J. leave granted. The  appellant herein was, married to second  respondent  on 16th  January,  1990 according to Hindu Rites  and  Customs. They  lived  together for sometime until  second  respondent left  the  matrimonial home to reside with  her  parents  in order  to  prepare for Higher  Secondary  Examination  which commenced on 5.4.90 920 and continued upto 10.5.90. In the month of April, 1990  she conceived,  on  coming to know that she  was  pregnant,  the appellant and the family members did not want her to beget a child.   Therefore she was forced to undergo abortion  which was  refused by the second respondent.  During the stay  She was  meted out cruetreatment both physically  and  mentally. She came back to the matrimonial home during Durga Pooja  in the  month  of October, 1990.  A female child  was  born  on 3.1.91.  She  filed a petition under section 125  Cr.   P.C. before  the  Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,  Alipore  in Misc.  Case No. 143 of 1991 both for herself and the  child. By  an  order  dated 14.8.91 which was  passed  ex-parte  he awarded  a sum of Rs. 300 per mansum to the mother  and  Rs. 200  to the child.  Against that order, he moved a  revision to the High Court.  That revision is pending as 1837 of  199 1.  Thereafter the petitioner filed a Crl.  Misc.  Case  No. 143  of 1991 for blood group test of the  second  respondent and the child. In  that  proceeding  the  petitioner  herein  disputed  the paternity  of the child and prayed for blood group  test  of the child to prove that he was not the father of the  child. According  to him if that could be established he would  not be   liable  to  pay  maintenance.   That  application   was dismissed  on two grounds: (i) there were other  methods  in the Evidence Act to disprove the paternity (ii) moreover  it is  settled  law that medical test cannot be  conclusive  of paternity. Aggrieved by this order, a revision was preferred before the High  Court.   Dismissing  the revision  it  was  held  that section  112  of  the Evidence Act  says  where  during  the continuance  of valid marriage if a child is born that is  a conclusive  proof about the legitimacy.  This section  would constitute  a stumbling block in the way of  the  petitioner getting his paternity disproved by blood group test. The  English law permitting blood test for  determining  the paternity  of  legitimacy could not be applied  in  view  of section  112  of  the Evidence Act.  Therefore  it  must  be concluded  that section 112 read with section 4 of the  said Act  debars  evidence  except in  cases  of  non-access  for disproving the presumption of legitimacy and paternity. It  is the contention of Mr. Ashok Sen, learned counsel  for the  appellant that the only way for the father to  disprove the paternity is by blood group test.  Having regard to  the development of medical jurisprudence to deny that request to the appellant will be unreasonable.  As a matter of fact, in England,  this is commonly resorted to as it will  leave  no room  for doubt.  In 1968 (1) All England Reports p. 20  Re. 1 it was held that even without the consent of the  guardian ad  litem,  the  court  had power  to  order  an  infant  be subjected to a blood group test. 921 There is no justification for the court below to refuse  the same  on  the ground that section 112 of  the  Evidence  Act would be an obstacle in seeking relief of blood group test. Before  we deal with the arguments, we will examine the  law

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

as  available in England.  At the beginning of  the  century scientists   established  that  human  blood   had   certain characteristics which could be genetically transmitted.  The first  recognised  system was ABO blood  group.   The  blood group of a child is determined by the parents’ genetic make- up  but the number of possibilities is such, that it is  not possible to prove that certain individuals are the father on the basis of comparing blood groups, only, that they are not the father. By  1930s other immunological test became available.   As  a result the possibility of establishing paternity  increased. An attempt by way of statutory provision to make blood  test compulsory in En-land failed in 1938.  However, in 1957  the Affiliation Proceedings Act was passed.  Under that Act,  it was  assumed  that  a  man was  the  father  once  a  sexual relationship  with the mother at the time of conception  was proven unless he could show another man had intercourse with her  at  that  time.   Failing  the  father’s  attempt,  the mother’s  evidence had to be corroborated by facts  such  as blood test etc. Under  the Act either party could ask for a blood  test  and either  was entitled to refuse to take part,  although  only the mother can apply for maintenance. The  Family Reforms Act, 1969 conferred powers on the  court to  direct  taking  blood  test  in  civil  proceedings   in paternity  cases.  Courts were able to give  directions  for the use of the blood test and taking blood samples from  the child,  the mother and any person alleged to be the  father. Since the passing of 1969 Act the general practice has  been to use blood tests when paternity is in issue.  However,  it is to be stated the court cannot order a person to submit to tests  but can draw adverse inferences from a refusal to  do so.   Now  under the Fan-lily Reforms Act, 1987  in  keeping with   modern   thinking  on  the  continuing   and   shared responsibility   of  parenthood,  ’parentage’  rather   than paternity has to be determined before the court.  Fathers as well  as  mothers  can  apply  for  maintenance.   Therefore contests can include mothers denial of paternity.  This  Act finally removed the legal aid for corroboration of  mother’s statement of paternity. Two  cases  may be usefully referred to: Re L  Lord  Denning M.R. [1968] All England Reports p. 20 stated thus 922               "but they can say positively that a given  man               cannot be the father, because the blood groups               of his and the child are so different."               (emphasis supplied). In B.R.B. v. J.B. [1968] 2 All England Reports 1023  applied this dictum and held as under:-               "The  Country court judge will refer it  to  a               High  Court  Judge as a  matter  suitable  for               ancillary relief, and the High Court Judge can               order the blood test.  Likewise, of course,  a               magistrate’s  court  has no power to  order  a               blood  test against the will of  the  parties.               The  magistrate can only do it by  consent  of               those concerned, namely, the grown-ups and the               mother   on   behalf  of   the   child;   but,               nevertheless, if any of them does not consent,               the  magistrate  can take  that  refusal  into               account1  adhere to the view which   expressed               in Re L. that (6)               "If  an adult unreasonably refuses to  have  a               blood test, or to allow a child to have one, I               think  that  it is open to the  court  in  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

             civil  proceedings (no matter whether it be  a               paternity issue or an affiliation summons,or a               custody  proceedings)  to take  his  refusalas               evidence   against  him,  and  may   draw   an               inference there from adverse to him.  This  is               simple common sense."               "The conclusion of the whole matter is that  a               judge  of the High Court has power to order  a               blood   test  whenever  it  is  in  the   best               interests  of  the child.  The judges  can  be               trusted to exercise this discretion wisely.  I               would set no limit, condition or bounds to the               way in which judges exercise their discretion.               To  object of the court always is to find  out               the  truth.  When scientific advances give  us               fresh means of ascertaining it, we should  not               hesitate  to  use  those  means  whenever  the               occasion requires."               "Having  heard full argument on the case,  lam               satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt (to  use               the   expression   used   in   rebutting   the               presumption   as  to  legitimacy)  that   LORD               DENNING,  M.R., was right in saying that  such               an  order  may be made in any case  where  the               child  is made a party to the proceedings  and               in the opinion of the judge of the High  Court               it  is in the child’s best interests  that  it               should be made." 923 As  regard  United  States the law  as  stated  in  Forensic Sciences edited by Cyril H.   Wecht is as under:-               Parentage  testing is the major (but  not  the               exclusive) involvement of forensic serology in               civil   cases.   The  majority   of   disputed               parentage  cases involve  disputed  paternity,               although an occasional disputed maternity,  or               baby mix-up case does arise, and can be solved               using the tools of forensic serology described               in  this chapter.  Blood typing has been  used               to help resolve paternity cases since the mid-               1920’s.   According  to  Latters,  there  were               3,000  cases  tested in Berlin  in  1924,  and               Schiff and Boyd said that the first case  went               to  court  in Berlin in 1924.   Ottenberg,  in               this  country  published  paternity  exclusion               tables  in  192 1, as did Dyke in  England  in               1922.  It took somewhat longer to satisfy  the               courts,  both in Europe and in  country,  that               parentage exclusions based upon blood grouping               were  completely valid.  Wiener said  that  he               had obtained an exclusion in a paternity  case               in this country which reached the courts early               in   1933.   In  January  of   1934,   Justice               Steinbrink  of the New York Supreme  Court  in               Brooklyn ordered that blood tests be performed                             in  a  disputed  paternity  action,  using   a s               precedent  a decision by the  Italian  Supreme               Court of Cassation, but his order was reversed               upon  appeal.  Soon afterward,  however,  laws               were  passed in a number of  states  providing               the  courts with statutory authority to  order               blood testing in disputed paternity cases.               Paternity testing has developed somewhat  more               slowly  in the Unitted States than in  certain

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

             of  the  European  countries,  but  today  the               differences in the number of systems employed,               and judicial acceptance of the results, are no               longer  that great.  A number  of  authorities               have   recently   reviewed  the   subject   of               paternity testing in some detail, and in  some               cases  have  summarized the results  of  large               number of cases that they have investigated.               Walker  points out that failure to  exclude  a               man, even at the 95 percent level of paternity               exclusion  does  not  mean  that  the  alleged               father  is  proven  to  be  biologic   father,               because absolute proof of paternity cannot  be               established by any known blood test available.               Although   this   fact  is  well   known   and               appreciated by workers it), the field of blood               grouping and by attorneys active in this area,               it  is  not generally understood  by  the  lay               public.  However, blood group               924               serology, using proven genetic marker systems,               represents   the  most   accurate   scientific               information  concerning  paternity and  is  so               recognised in the United States, as well as in               a number of countries abroad." In  India  there  is  no  special  statute  governing  this. Neither  the  Criminal Procedure Code nor the  Evidence  Act empowers  the  court to direct such a test to be  made.   In 1951  (1) Madras Law Journal p.58O Polavarapu  Venkteswarlu, minor  by  guardian  and  mother  Hanwnamma  v.   Polavarapu Subbayya  in that case the application was  preferred  under section  151  of the Code of Civil  Procedure  invoking  the inherent  powers of the Court to direct a blood  test.   The learned judge was of the following view:-               Section  15 1, Civil Procedure Code, has  been               introduced  in  to the Statute  book  to  give               effect  to the inherent powers. of  Courts  as               expounded  by  Woodroffe, J., in  Hukum  Chand               Boid  v. Kamalan and Singh.  Such  powers  can               only be exercised ex debito justice and not on               the mere invocation of parties or on the  mere               volition  of  courts.  There is  no  procedure               either  in the Civil Procedure Code or in  the               Indian Evidence Act which provides for a  test               of  the  kind  sought  to  be  taken  by   the               defendant in the present case.  It is said  by                             Mr.  Ramakrishna for the respondent  before  m e               that in England this sort of test is  resorted               to by Courts where the question of  non-access               in  connection  with an  issue  of  legitimacy               arises  for consideration.  My  attention  has               been  drawn by learned counsel to page  69  of               Taylor’s  Principles and Practice  of  Medical               Jurisprudence,  Volume 2, where it  is  stated               thus :               "In  Wilson v. Wilson, Lancet [1942]  1.  570,               evidence  was given that the  husband’s  group               was  OM, that the wife’s was BM and  that  the               child’s  was  ABN.  The Court  held  that  the               husband  was  not  the father  of  child,  and               granted a decree for nullity."               "It  is  also pointed out by  learned  counsel               that in the         text  books  on    Medical               Jurisprudence  and Toxicology by  Rai  Bahadur

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

             Jaising P. Moi,  (8th  Edition), at  page  94,               reference  is  made  to a case  decided  by  a               Criminal  Court at Mercare in June, 194 1,  in               which the paternity and maternity of the child               being under dispute, the Court resorted to the               results of the blood grouping test."               925               That  may  be.   But I am  not  in  any  event               satisfied that if the parties are unwilling to               offer their blood for a test of this kind this               Court can force them to do so." The same view was taken by the Kerala High Court in Vasu  v. Santha 1975 Kerala Law Times p. 533 as               "A  special protection is given by the law  to               the status of legitimacy in India.  The law is               very strict regarding the type of the evidence               which  can be let in to rebut the  presumption               of legitimacy of a child.  Even proof that the               mother  committed adultery with any number  of               men will not of itself suffice for proving the               illegitimacy of the child.  If she had  access               to her husband during the time the child could               have   been   begotten  the   law   will   not               countenance  any  attempt on the part  of  the               husband  to  prove  that  the  child  is   not               actually  his.   The  presumption  of  law  of               legitimacy  of  a child will  not  be  lightly               repelled.  It will not be allowed to be broken               or  shaken by a mere balance  of  probability.               The evidence of non-access for the purpose  of               repelling   it  must  be   strong,   distinct,               satisfactory  and  conclusive  see  Morris  v.               Davies, (1837) 5 Cl. & Fin. 163.  The standard               of  proof  in this regard is  similar  to  the               standard of proof of guilt in a criminal case.               These rigours are justified by  considerations               of  public policy for there are a  variety  of               reasons  why  a child’s status is  not  to  be               triffled with.  The stigma of illegitimacy  is               very  severe  and  we  have  not  any  of  the                             protective   legislations  as  in  England   t o               protect illegitimate children.  No doubt, this               may  in  some  cases  require  a  husband   to               maintain  children of whom he is probably  not               their father.  But, the legislature alone  can               change  the  rigour  of the law  and  not  the               court.  The court cannot base a conclusion  on               evidence  different from that required by  the               law  or  decide on a  balance  of  probability               which  will  be  the  result  if  blood   test               evidence is accepted.               There is an aspect of the matter also.  Before               a  blood  test  of a  person  is  ordered  his               consert is required.  The reason is that  this               test  is a constraint on his personal  liberty               and cannot be carried out without his consent.               Whether even a legislature can compel a  blood               test is doubtful.  Here no consent is given by               any  of the respondents.  It is also  doubtful               whether  a  guardian ad litem  can  give  this               consent.   Therefore, in these  circumstances,               the learned Munsiff was right in               926               refusing  the prayer for a blood test  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

             appellant and respondents 2 and 3. The learned               Judge  is also correct in holding  that  there               was  no illegality in refusing a  blood  test.               The  maximum  that can be done where  a  party               refuses  to  have a blood test is to  draw  an               adverse  inference  (see  in  this  connection               Subayya  Gounder v. Bhoopala, AIR 1959  Madras               396,  and  the earlier decision  of  the  same               court  in Venkateswarlu v. Subbayya  AIR  1951               Madras  910.  Such an adverse inference  which               has only a very little relevance here will not               advance the appellants case to any extent.  He               has  to  prove that he had no  opportunity  to               have  any  sexual  intercourse  with  the  1st               respondent at a time when these children could               have  been begotten.  That is the  only  proof               that  is permitted under S. II 2  to  dislodge               the  conclusive  presumption enjoined  by  the               Section." In Hargavind Soni v. Ramdulari AIR 1986 MP at 57 held as:-               "The blood grouping test is a perfect test  to               determine questions of disputed paternity of a               child  and can be relied upon by Courts  as  a               circumstantial evidence.  But no person can be               compelled to give a sample of blood for  blood               grouping test against his will and no  adverse               inference  can be drawn against him  for  this               refusal." Blood  grouping  test  is a useful  test  to  determine  the question  of disputed paternity.  It can be relied  upon  by courts   as  a  circumstantial  evidence  which   ultimately excludes  a  certain invididual as a father  of  the  child. However, it requires to be carefully noted no person can  be compelled  to give sample of blood for analysis against  her will  and no adverse inference can be drawn against her  for this refusal. In  Raghunath  v.  Shardabai 1986 AIR  Bombay  388,  it  was observed  blood  grouping test have their  limitation,  they cannot possibly establish paternity, they can only  indicate its possibilities.               In  Bhartiraj v. Sumesh Sachdeo &  Ors.,  1986               AIR Allahabad 2591 held as:-               "Discussing  the  evidentiary value  of  blood               tests  for  determining paternity,  Rayden  on               Divorce,  (1983) Vol. 1) p. 1054 has  this  to               say               "Medical Science is able to analyse the  blood               of individuals               927               into  definite  groups: and by  examining  the               blood of a given man and a child to  determine               whether  the  man could or could  not  be  the               father.   Blood tests cannot  show  positively               that  any  man is father, but  they  can  show               positively that a given man could or could not               be  the  father.  It is obviously  the  latter               aspect the proves most valuable in determining               paternity,  that is, the exclusion aspect  for               once it is determined that a man could not  be               the   father,  he  is  thereby   automatically               excluded  from  considerations  of  paternity.               When  a man is not the father of a  child,  it               has been said that there is at least a 70  per               cent chance that if blood tests are taken they               will  show. positively he is not  the  father,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

             and  in some cases the chance is even  higher:               between  two  giver men who  have  had  sexual               intercourse  with. the mother at the  time  of               conception, both of whom undergo blood  tests,               it  has likewise been said that there is a  80               per cent chance that the tests will show  that               one  of  them  is  not  the  father  with  the               irresistible  inference that the other is  the               father.               The  position  which emerges on  reference  to               these authoritative texts is that depending on               the type of litigation, samples of blood, when               subjected  to skilled scientific  examination,               can  sometimes  supply  helpful  evidence   on               various   issues,  to  exclude  a   particular               parentage  set  up  in  the  case.   But   the               consideration remains that the party asserting               the claim to have a child and the rival set of               parents  put to blood test must establish  his               right   so   to  do.   The   court   exercises               protective   jurisdiction  on  behalf  of   an               infant.  In my considered opinion it would  be               unjust  and not fair either to direct  a  test               for  a collateral reason to assist a  litigant               in  his  or her claim.  The  child  cannot  be               allowed  to suffer because of his  incapacity;               the aim is to ensure that he gets his  rights.               If  in a case the court has reason to  believe               that  the application for blood test is  of  a               fishing  nature or designed for some  ulterior               motive, it would be justified in not  acceding               to such a prayer." "The  above  is  the dicta laid down  by  the  various  High Courts.  In matters of this kind the court must have  regard to  section 112 of the Evidence Act.  This section is  based on  the well known maxim pater est quem nuptioe  demonstrant (he  is  the  father  whom  the  marriage  indicates).   The presumption  of legitimacy is this, that a child born  of  a married  woman is deemed to be legitimate, it throws on  the person who is interested in making out the illegitimacy, the whole  burden of proving it.  The law presumes both  that  a marriage ceremony is valid, any that every 928 person is legitimate.  Marriage or filiation (parentage) may be  presumed, the law in general presuming against vice  and immoratility." It  is  a rebuttable presumption of law that a  child  born. during  the  lawful wedlock is legitimate, and  that  access occurred between the parents.  This presumption can only  be displaced by a strong preponderannce of evidence, and not by a mere balance of probabilities. In  Smt.  Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohammed Faroog AIR 1987 SC  1049 this court held.               "Section  II 2 lays down that if a person  was               born   during  the  continuance  of  a   valid               marriage  between  his mother and any  man  or               within  two hundren and eighty days after  its               dissolution and the mother remains  unmarried,               it shall be taken as conclusive proof that  he               is  the legitimate son of that man, unless  it               can be shown that the parties to the  marriage               had no access to each other at anytime when he               could  have been begotten.  This rule  of  law               based  on the dictates of justice  has  always               made the courts incline towards upholding  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

             legitimacy of a child unless the facts are  so               compulsive  and  clinching as  to  necessarily               warrant a finding that the child could not  at               all  have been begotten to the father  and  as               such a legitimation of the child would  result               in rank injustice to the father.  Courts  have               always   desisted  from  lightly  or   hastily               rendering a verdict and that too, on the basts               of  slender  materials, which  will  have  the               effect  of branding a child as a  bastard  and               its mother an unchaste woman." This  section requires the party disputing the paternity  to prove  non-access  in  order  to  dispel  the   presumption. "Access"  and  "non-access"  mean  the  existence  or   non- existence  of opportunities for sexual intercourse; it  does not mean actual cohabitation. The  effect of this section is this: there is a  presumption and  a very strong one though a reubttable one.   Conclusive proof  means  as laid down under section 4 of  the  Evidence Act. From the above discussion it emerges:- (1)  that courts in India cannot order blood test as  matter of course; 929 (2)  wherever  applications  are made for  such  prayers  in order  to  have roving inquiry, the prayer  for  blood  test cannot be entertained. (3)  There  must  be a strong primafacie case  in  that  the husband  must  establish non-access in order to  dispel  the presumption arising under section 112 of the Evidence Act. (4)  The  court must carefully examine as to what  would  be the consequence of ordering the blood test; whether it  will have  the  effect of branding a child as a bastard  and  the mother as an unchaste woman. (5)  No  one can be compelled to give sample  of  blood  for analysis. Examined in the light of the above, we find no difficulty in upholding  the impugned order of the High Court,  confirming the  order of the Addl.  Chief Judicial Magistrate,  Alipore in  rejecting the application for blood test.  We  find  the purpose  of  the application is nothing more than  to  avoid payment  of maintenance, without making any ground  whatever to  have recourse to the test.  Accordingly Criminal  Appeal will stand dismissed.  Cr, M.P.No. 2224/93 in S.L.P.(cr  No. 2648/92  filed by Respondent No. 2 will stand allowed.   She is  permitted to withdraw the amount without furnishing  any Security. R.P.                                    S.L.P. dismissed. 930