APARNA AJINKYA FIRODIA VS. AJINKYA ARUN FIRODIA 2023

Introduction

The 20th February 2023 judgement in the case of Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs. Ajinkya Arun Firodia is a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India. This case brings into discussion the legitimacy of a child born out of a valid marriage, use of DNA testing for proving paternity purposes, and safeguards available in Indian law. As such, the judgement handles issues relating to privacy, the rights of a child, and the evidential value accorded to DNA testing in family disputes.

Factual Background

Aparna Ajinkya Firodia and Ajinkya Arun Firodia married on 23rd November 2005 and had two children. The second child, Master “X”, was born on 17th July 2013. In September 2016, Ajinkya Arun Firodia found messages on Aparna’s phone that indicated an adulterous relationship. He then did a private DNA test, which allegedly proved that he was not the biological father of Master “X”.

It was in June 2017 that Ajinkya filed for divorce based on adultery grounds and prayed for a direction to conduct a court-ordered DNA test to establish the paternity of Master “X”. While the Family Court, and later the High Court of Bombay, allowed this application, Aparna challenged the same before the Supreme Court.

Bench Details

The Supreme Court bench consisted of Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, who delivered a detailed judgement on the matter.

Issues Raised

1. Whether a court can order a DNA test to determine the paternity of a child born within a marriage.
2. Whether such an order violates the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
3. Whether the respondent’s evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption of legitimacy.

Contentions

• Appellant’s Contentions (Aparna Ajinkya Firodia):
  • The presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act is a strong presumption and should not be lightly displaced.
  • It is a question of the privacy and welfare of the child that ordering a DNA test would go against.
  • The production of evidence by the respondent, to the effect that there was a private DNA test conducted, and the WhatsApp messages, was legally not admissible or sufficient to warrant a DNA test.
• Respondent’s Contentions (Ajinkya Arun Firodia):
  • As already proven by his private DNA test, he is not the biological father of Master “X”, and this alone should suffice to order a court-ordered DNA test.
  • It was averred that the WhatsApp messages between the third respondent and an unknown individual provided prima facie evidence of adultery which justified the performance of a DNA test.
  • In cases of adultery, the need for truth and justice must take precedence over the presumption of legitimacy.

Rationale

The Supreme Court’s rationale covered several critical aspects:

1. Presumption of Legitimacy:
   • It was held that a strong presumption of legitimacy attached to a child born during wedlock. This presumption could be rebutted only by clear proof of non-access between spouses at the relevant time.
   • Presumption as to legitimacy was an imperative factor for reasons affecting the sanctity and stability of family relationships
2. DNA Testing and Privacy:
   • The Court accepted that DNA tests were of an extremely high accuracy but still objects to its routine use in challenging paternity. The right to privacy of the child and the social stigma that may result are significant factors to be kept in mind.
   • The welfare of the child must be of paramount consideration, pitted against the interests of the parents.
3. Evidence of Adultery:
   • The reliance of the respondent upon WhatsApp messages and a private DNA test was criticised. The Court held that such evidence should be proved through legal procedures and ought to be properly authenticated.
   • The respondent did not make out a prima facie case of denial of access or bring on record any satisfactory evidence to justify directions for a DNA test.
4. Alternative Evidence:
   • The Court felt that the respondent had available call recordings and daily diary maintained by the appellant to establish adultery.
   • It was not a DNA test that would determine the truth.

Past Cases Referenced

The Supreme Court referred to several past cases to support its judgement:

1. Goutam Kundu vs. State of West Bengal (1993):
   • In this case, the Court held that DNA testing should not be ordered as a matter of course and that the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 should be respected unless there is a strong prima facie case against it.
2. Banarsi Dass vs. Teeku Dutta (2005):
   • The Court reiterated that the presumption of legitimacy of a child born during a lawful marriage is a fundamental principle, and clear evidence is required to rebut this presumption.
3. Sham Lal @ Kuldeep vs. Sanjeev Kumar (2009):
   • This case emphasised the need for the welfare of the child to be the paramount consideration in cases involving paternity disputes.

Judgement

The Supreme Court, thereby allowing the appeal, set aside the judgement and order of the High Court and that of the Family Court. It was held that the direction to conduct a DNA test was erroneous. No adverse inference as to the legitimacy of Master “X” could be drawn from the appellant’s refusal to subject him to a DNA test. Appeal, thus, stood allowed with costs of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid to the appellant.

Defects of Law

• Lack of Clear Guidelines: The law does not provide clear directions regarding when DNA tests can be ordered in the dispute over paternity, and thus opening avenues for its misuse.
• Privacy Concerns: The present legal framework does not take adequate care of the privacy concerns of children and social stigma that may be associated with paternity disputes.
• Balancing Interests: The need to reconcile the interest of truth and justice with child’s rights and family integrity is felt more strongly..

Inference

The Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs. Ajinkya Arun Firodia case yet again reaffirms that there is a presumption of strong legitimacy of a child born during marriage. It clearly brings out the judicial cautiousness while considering modern DNA testing in paternity disputes to protect children’s rights and family integrity. The judgement balances technological development with the established legal principles so that justice is delivered in a manner protecting the best interest of the child and the sanctity of familial relationships. This judgement will act as a precedent for future cases that go before the courts with similar issues, laying down that clear and sufficient evidence are required before ordering an intrusive procedure such as DNA testing.

Author: Siva Prasanna Kumar Pedda Puttaiahgari

College: Havnur College of Law, KSLU