Introduction:

In the case of A J Stephen v Rosemariya, a contentious issue of paternity emerged before the Kerala High Court. The petitioner sought a DNA test to challenge his paternity of a minor child. However, the Family Court dismissed the plea, citing the petitioner’s prior conduct where he had accepted paternity. The case delved into the legal doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel, emphasizing the significance of conduct in determining parental rights.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, represented by Advocates M Sasindran and Satheeshan Alakkadan, argued for the right to undergo a DNA test to establish the true paternity of the child. They contended that the petitioner’s previous acceptance of paternity should not preclude him from seeking scientific evidence to ascertain the truth.

On the other hand, Advocates Athul Babu and Pranoy K Kottaram, representing the respondents, argued that the petitioner’s conduct, including an agreement acknowledging paternity and providing maintenance for the child, should estop him from challenging paternity now. They emphasized the importance of maintaining stability and certainty in familial relationships for the well-being of the child.

Court’s Judgement:

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P M Manoj, upheld the decision of the Family Court. Relying on the doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel, the court emphasized the significance of the petitioner’s conduct in establishing paternity. It highlighted the psychological impact on the child and the public policy considerations of familial stability and identity. Additionally, the court cited international conventions and previous legal precedents to support it’s decision.