NANDLAL WASUDEO BADWAIK Vs LATA NANDLAL BADWAIK

NANDLAL WASUDEO BADWAIK Vs LATA NANDLAL BADWAIK

NAME OF THE CASE	Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik Vs Lata Nandlal Badwaik
CITATION	Special leave petition(cri) 24 of 2014
DATE OF THE CASE	6th January 2014
APPELENT	Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik
RESPONDENT	Lata Nandlal Badwaik
BENCH\ JUDGES	Hon’ble Chandramauli Kr. Prasad Hon’ble Jagdish Singh Khehar

BACKGROUND

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the result of a DNA test is considered genuine and scientifically accurate. This is despite the fact that DNA testing and other modern scientific developments were not available when section 112 of the Evidence Act was introduced.

Section 112 provides that a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage is considered legitimate, and this is conclusive proof of the child’s legitimacy if certain conditions are met. The only way to deny the legitimacy of such a child is by showing that there was no access between the parties to the marriage at any time when the child could have been conceived.

In the present case, the husband denied that there was any access between him and his wife when the child was conceived, as his wife did not return to him after leaving their matrimonial home. The wife claimed that there was access between them, resulting in the birth of the child.

The husband underwent two DNA tests, which showed that he was not the biological father of the child. The court assumed that the DNA test results were accurate and held that the husband could not be compelled to accept fatherhood of the child based on scientific evidence. Therefore, the court found that the husband should be freed from the obligation to pay maintenance to the child, and if any maintenance had already been paid, he could recover it.

Overall, the court’s decision was based on the scientific accuracy of the DNA test results and the lack of evidence to support the wife’s claim of access between her and her husband.

INTRODUCTION

The petitioner in this case is the husband of Lata Nandlal Badwaik, who is alleged to be the father of their daughter, Netra alias Neha Nandlal Badwaik, respondent no. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and his wife was solemnized on June 30, 1990, in Chandrapur. The wife had previously filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but it was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on December 10, 1993.

The wife then filed a fresh proceeding under Section 125 of the Code, claiming maintenance for herself and her daughter, alleging that she lived with her husband from June 20, 1996, and stayed with him for about two years, during which she got pregnant and was sent to her parents’ place for delivery, where she gave birth to their daughter, respondent no. 2. The husband denied the claim and alleged that the wife’s assertion that she lived with him since June 20, 1996, is false. He also denied that respondent no. 2 is his daughter and claimed that after 1991, he had no physical relationship with his wife.

However, the learned Magistrate accepted the wife’s plea and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.900/- per month to the wife and Rs.500/- per month to their daughter. The petitioner challenged this order in revision, but it failed, as did a petition under Section 482 of the Code, challenging those orders.

As a result, the petitioner has filed a special leave petition against these orders. The Supreme Court has granted leave to hear the petition.

FACTS

There was a dispute between Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik and Lata Nandlal Badwaik regarding the paternity of their daughter Netra, also known as Neha. The parties were directed by the court to undergo a DNA test at the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory in Nagpur, which resulted in the opinion that Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik is excluded from being the biological father of Netra/Neha. The respondents were not satisfied with the report and requested a re-test, which was granted by the court. The parties then underwent a DNA test at the Central Forensic Science Laboratory in Hyderabad, which also resulted in the opinion that Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik can be excluded from being the biological father of Netra/Neha.

The appellant in this case argues that since the court had previously ordered a DNA test twice and the respondents had not opposed it, the question of whether the test should have been ordered is irrelevant. The court agrees with this argument, stating that the previous orders for DNA testing had attained finality and cannot be challenged at this stage. The court also notes that the decisions in Goutam Kundu, Banarsi Dass, and Bhabani Prasad Jena are not relevant to the current case since the court had already ordered a valid DNA test.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Can Conclusive proof of marriage be made basis to repel order of DNA testing for purpose of Section 125 CrPC?

ARGUMENTS

There is a dispute between the husband and wife regarding whether the husband had access to his wife at the time when the child could have been conceived. The wife claims that the child was born in wedlock and the husband had access to her, while the husband contends that the wife left the matrimonial home and he had no access to her.

Unfortunately, the lower courts did not give any findings with regard to this crucial issue. It is important to determine whether the husband had access to his wife during the relevant period because it would determine the paternity of the child. If the husband had no access to his wife, then it is unlikely that he is the biological father of the child.

Therefore, this issue needs to be resolved by the court before a decision can be made on the paternity of the child. The court may need to hear evidence from both parties and any witnesses who can shed light on whether the husband had access to his wife during the relevant period. Only then can the court make an informed decision on the paternity of the child.

JUDGEMENT

This Court on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the husband had no opportunity whatsoever to have liaison with the wife. There was no DNA test held in the case. In the said background i.e. Non-access of the husband with the wife, this Court held that the result of DNA test “is not enough to escape from the conclusiveness of Section 112 of the Act”. The judgment has to be understood in the factual scenario of the said case. The said judgment has not held that DNA test is to be ignored. In fact, this Court has taken note of the fact that DNA test is scientifically accurate. We hasten to add that in none of the cases referred to above, this Court was confronted with a situation in which DNA test report, in fact, was available and was in conflict with the presumption of conclusive proof of legitimacy of the child under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. In view of what we have observed above, these judgments in no way advance the case of the respondents.

In summary, the passage explains that the previous judgments cited by the respondents do not support their case. The judgments dealt with situations where the court had to consider whether to order a DNA test or not, while in the present case, the court had already ordered the DNA test twice, and the reports were adverse to the respondents. The judgments also did not deal with a situation where the DNA test report was in conflict with the presumption of conclusive proof of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the judgments do not apply to the present case and do not support the respondents’ argument that the DNA test should be ignored.

By Shravani Ghosh, Kingston Educational Institute, 4^th Sem Llb 3yrs