In the instant case at hand X v. Y A petition contesting the Family Court’s ruling on 7 May 2021 accepting the request for directives to undertake a DNA test to confirm paternity of the respondent’s young daughter was filed under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution. As husband and wife, the petitioner and respondent shared a loving relationship. The respondent pledged to marry the petitioner and care for the unborn child during visits to her in Mumbai and Kerala. The respondent married a different woman after the girlchild was born in Kerala. The petitioner disclosed their relationship to the respondent and wanted long-term plans to ensure their safety. The response threatened to discontinue providing maintenance and pledged to take care of them. The petitioner disregarded the petitioners when he required obedience and stopped giving them upkeep. The applicant and the minor child have not lived together since October 12, 2013. The respondent filed a petition in which she requested several things, including the recognition of her as a legally wed wife, the declaration of her daughter as having been born during the marriage, the recovery of previous maintenance in the amount of Rs. 36 lakhs, future support in the amount of Rs. 50,000 per month for the daughter until she reaches adulthood, and Rs. 1 crore in compensation for marriage-related costs. The petitioner claimed that she became legally wed as a result of her protracted cohabitation and that the marriage she had with the other person was void ab initio. The respondent denied having a romantic or living arrangement with the petitioner, as well as being the girl’s father. When the Family Court discovered prima facie evidence of extensive cohabitation, it permitted DNA testing and ordered the respondent to provide a sample of his blood. The ruling was contested by the respondent.
Conclusion of the Court
The ruling issued by the Family Court was confirmed by the single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court, led by Justice Mary Joseph after the court took into account the initial evidence supporting the couple’s claims of a long-term relationship and the birth of their daughter.
The court looked at pictures of the petitioner and respondent at various phases of their daughter’s development. The images were judged to be prima facie evidence notwithstanding the respondent’s claims to the contrary. The Respondent’s failure to make a prima facie case for his claimed immoral life was taken into account by the Court as well. The court decided that disobeying the injunction would stigmatise the child and mother in society, portraying them as immoral and based.
The court clarified that although an illegitimate kid is also eligible for a maintenance allowance, paternity must first be shown in order for the court to order compensation from the respondent who is claimed to be the kid’s father. As a result, the Court affirmed the Family Court’s directive to the respondent to undertake blood tests for DNA analysis.
CASE NAME – X v. Y, Criminal Original Petition No. 508 of 2023