Posts
Source: The Times of India dated 9.1.2014
New Delhi: A nascent 30-yearold scientific advancement fought a pitched battle against a 142-year-old law in the Supreme Court and registered a decisive victory, bludgeoning a presumptuous provision in the colonial era Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Truth prevailed, but an innocent girl child got bastardized.
An emotionally-scarred SC bench stayed firm on ‘truth’. It said: “When there is conflict between conclusive proof envisaged under law and that based on scientific advancement accepted by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over former.”
As a result of this SC ruling, DNA tests to ascertain parenthood of children born out of subsisting marriages will now become a judicially acceptable legitimate exercise.
Nandlal was married to Lata in 1990, but he claimed they have lived separately since 1991. Lata claimed she had been living intermittently with Nandlal. A girl child was born to them in 1996 when their marriage was subsisting, even though they were estranged. The wife sought maintenance for herself and daughter.
The husband resisted paying maintenance to the child saying he was not her father. But a Maharashtra court granted Rs 1400 — Rs 900 for the wife and Rs 500 for the child — citing a section of the Evidence Act which says that a child born during subsisting marriage be presumed as the couple’s legitimate offspring as long as the husband had access to the wife.
On appeal, the SC ordered a DNA test as desired by Nandlal to prove the child’s paternity. Two separate tests threw up the same result: Nandlal was not the father.
This posed a legal dilemma for a bench comprising Justices C K Prasad and J S Khehar. But they overcame the conflict between science and law.
The court said: “We are conscious that an innocent child may not be bastardized as the marriage between her mother and father was subsisting at the time of her birth, but in view of the DNA test reports and what we have observed above, we cannot forestall the consequence. It is denying the truth. ‘Truth must triumph’ is the hallmark of justice.”
Science beats 142-year-old law, leaves girl ‘fatherless’
Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN
New Delhi: A nascent 30-yearold scientific advancement fought a pitched battle against a 142-year-old law in the Supreme Court and registered a decisive victory, bludgeoning a presumptuous provision in the colonial era Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Truth prevailed, but an innocent girl child got bastardized.
An emotionally-scarred SC bench stayed firm on ‘truth’. It said: “When there is conflict between conclusive proof envisaged under law and that based on scientific advancement accepted by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over former.”
As a result of this SC ruling, DNA tests to ascertain parenthood of children born out of subsisting marriages will now become a judicially acceptable legitimate exercise.
Nandlal was married to Lata in 1990, but he claimed they have lived separately since 1991. Lata claimed she had been living intermittently with Nandlal. A girl child was born to them in 1996 when their marriage was subsisting, even though they were estranged. The wife sought maintenance for herself and daughter.
The husband resisted paying maintenance to the child saying he was not her father. But a Maharashtra court granted Rs 1400 — Rs 900 for the wife and Rs 500 for the child — citing a section of the Evidence Act which says that a child born during subsisting marriage be presumed as the couple’s legitimate offspring as long as the husband had access to the wife.
On appeal, the SC ordered a DNA test as desired by Nandlal to prove the child’s paternity. Two separate tests threw up the same result: Nandlal was not the father.
This posed a legal dilemma for a bench comprising Justices C K Prasad and J S Khehar. But they overcame the conflict between science and law.
The court said: “We are conscious that an innocent child may not be bastardized as the marriage between her mother and father was subsisting at the time of her birth, but in view of the DNA test reports and what we have observed above, we cannot forestall the consequence. It is denying the truth. ‘Truth must triumph’ is the hallmark of justice.”
No comments:
Post a Comment