Case Summary: Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs Ajinkya Arun Firodia
In The Supreme Court Of India
Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1308 Of 2023
Date of Decision: 20-02-2023
Citation: (2023) 02 SC CK 0077
Bench: V. Ramasubramanian, B.V. Nagarathna (Division Bench)
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2368777-aparna-ajinkya-firodia-vs-ajinkya?s=&refine_search=&s_acts=
Facts of the Case
The appellant-wife challenged orders of the Family Court, Pune, and Bombay High Court directing a DNA test of her second child to establish paternity. The husband alleged adultery and relied on private DNA reports to claim the child was not his biological son. The Family Court allowed DNA testing to substantiate adultery claims, and the High Court upheld this decision. The wife contended that such orders violated Section 112 of the Evidence Act and her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Law Points Raised
1. Whether directing a DNA test violates personal liberty under Article 21.
2. Whether Section 112 of the Evidence Act (presumption of legitimacy) is absolute or rebuttable.
3. Whether a strong prima facie case is necessary to justify DNA testing in matrimonial disputes.
4. Whether DNA evidence overrides statutory presumptions in legitimacy disputes.
Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred
Constitution of India: Articles 19, 21, 24(3), 37.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Sections 13, 13(1)(i), 13(1)(ia).
Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 4, 41, 79-90, 111A, 112, 113, 113A, 113B, 114(h), 114A, 148(4).
Family Courts Act, 1984: Section 14.
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 323, 354, 498A, 506, 509.
Judgments Referred
1. Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014) 2 SCC 576 – DNA evidence prevails over presumption.
2. Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003) 4 SCC 493 – Courts can direct medical tests, not violative of Article 21.
3. Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) 3 SCC 418 – cautious approach to ordering DNA tests.
4. Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram (2001) 5 SCC 311 – presumption under Section 112 strong, rebuttable only by proof of non-access.
Obiter Dicta
The Court observed that while modern science allows near-certain determination of paternity, courts must balance truth-finding with the child’s dignity, legitimacy, and welfare. DNA tests should not be ordered routinely; only strong prima facie grounds justify interference with statutory presumptions.
Ratio Decidendi
1. Section 112 presumption is rebuttable but requires strong evidence of non-access.
2. DNA tests can be directed only where a strong prima facie case exists.
3. Orders for DNA tests should respect privacy and child welfare under Article 21.
4. Courts must exercise caution and sensitivity in balancing legitimacy presumption with scientific evidence.
Final Ruling
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside orders of the Family Court and High Court. It held that the direction for a DNA test was unjustified in the absence of a strong prima facie case. The presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act must prevail unless conclusively rebutted. (Paras 19, 24, 31, 42, 49)
Summary
This judgment reaffirmed the sanctity of marital presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act while acknowledging the role of scientific evidence. It clarified that DNA testing in matrimonial disputes cannot be ordered lightly and requires compelling prima facie justification. The decision strengthens protection of child legitimacy and privacy under Article 21.