KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has observed that once a man admits the fatherhood of a child, he cannot be permitted to deny the child’s parentage. The court also cited a Supreme Court judgment that “If a certain person has acted as the parent and bonded with the child, the child should not be required to suffer the potentially damaging trauma that may come from being told that the father he/she had known all their life is not his father.”
A division bench of the court issued the order on a petition filed by A J Stephen, a native of Kannur, before the Kannur family court seeking to arraign his 10-year-old daughter as a respondent in a matter regarding a DNA test. The petitioner contended that he reasonably doubts the paternity of the minor child. Hence, he approached the family court seeking a declaration that he was not the father of the child, but the same was not done.
An earlier petition filed by the child through her mother seeking maintenance stated that Stephen subjected her mother to rape on various occasions in 2013 while she was working as a nursery teacher in an English medium school run by him in Andhra Pradesh. Meanwhile, the woman married another person, and she became pregnant.
During a medical examination, it was revealed that she was five-and-a-half-months pregnant, while the marriage had not been that long. Following this, the woman was abandoned by her husband. She then filed a separate rape case against the petitioner, following which the Irikkur police registered a case.
The final report in the case was filed much later. During the trial in the rape case, the petitioner approached the mother of the child for a settlement to free him of the charges. After considering the best interest of the child, an agreement was entered into in April 2021.
As per the terms of the agreement, the mother did not depose in terms of the prosecution version in the case in which the petitioner herein was the accused. Consequently, the accused was acquitted of all charges.
Meanwhile, the child had filed a plea before the family court seeking maintenance and requested to conduct a DNA test. Despite the vehement objections raised by the petitioner, the court allowed the application and directed him to appear for the test. However, the petitioner failed to appear and the test could not be conducted.
Consequently, the family court proceeded to pass an ex parte order in the maintenance case. The petitioner thereafter approached the family court and applied to set aside the ex parte order. The application was allowed on payment of a cost of Rs 10,000.
Since the petitioner failed to pay the cost, his application was rejected and he was ordered to pay a maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000 to the minor child from 2014. The petitioner has been paying the maintenance in terms of the directions issued by the court.
However, the petitioner came up with a fresh petition in October 2022, after the rape charges against him was dropped, seeking a declaration that he is not the child’s father.
FROM THE HIGH COURT
The petitioner contended that he reasonably doubts the paternity of the minor child. Hence, he approached the family court seeking a declaration that he was not the father of the child, but the same was not done.
