What did the Supreme Court decide in Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy?

The Court allowed DNA testing to test the husband’s claim and held that when strong scientific proof conflicts with a legal presumption, courts may rely on science to do justice.

How does Section 112 of the Evidence Act apply after this case?

Section 112 creates a presumption of legitimacy, but it can be rebutted. DNA evidence, being highly reliable, can rebut the presumption in appropriate cases.

What happens if a party refuses a court-ordered DNA test?

The court may draw an adverse presumption under Section 114 illustration (h) of the Evidence Act against the refusing party.

Is this case only about divorce?

No. It clarifies how courts should balance legal presumptions and scientific evidence, which can apply in family law and evidence law generally.

Which law subjects does this case help with?

Indian Evidence Act (Sections 112 and 114), Family Law under the Hindu Marriage Act, and procedural powers of Family Courts and High Courts.

Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (AIR 2015 SC 418)

Supreme Court of India 2015 AIR 2015 SC 418 Evidence & Family Law ~8 min read

CASE_TITLE PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 112 Evidence Act, DNA test, legitimacy SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Section 114 IEA, adultery allegation, Hindu Marriage Act

Author: Gulzar Hashmi | Location: India | Publish Date: 27-Oct-2023 | Slug: dipanwita-roy-v-ronobroto-roy-air-2015-sc-418

Quick Summary

This case explains how courts should read Section 112 of the Evidence Act (presumption of child’s legitimacy) in the age of DNA testing. The husband alleged that his wife had an affair and asked for a DNA test to show he was not the father. The Family Court refused, the High Court allowed it, and the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court.

Key point: A strong legal presumption can be rebutted by reliable scientific proof. If a party refuses a lawful test, courts may draw an adverse inference under Section 114(h).

```

Issues

Can a court allow a DNA test to check a husband’s claim of non-paternity despite the presumption in Section 112?
If a party refuses such a test, may the court draw an adverse presumption under Section 114(h)?

Rules

Section 112, Evidence Act (Presumption)

A child born during a valid marriage (or within 280 days of its end, if the mother is unmarried) is conclusively presumed legitimate, unless non-access is shown.

Section 114(h), Evidence Act (Adverse Presumption)

If a party refuses to answer or cooperate where law expects cooperation (like a directed test), the court may presume the answer would be unfavourable.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline

Husband seeks DNA test: He alleges his wife had an extra-marital affair and is not the child’s biological father.

Wife objects: She denies the affair, says the allegations are malicious, and asks the court to dismiss the test request.

Family Court (27 Aug 2012): Application for DNA test is rejected.

Calcutta High Court (6 Dec 2012): In revision, the High Court allows the husband’s plea for DNA testing.

Supreme Court: Wife files SLP under Article 136 challenging the High Court’s order.

Arguments

Appellant (Wife)

Allegations are false and aimed at harming her reputation.
Section 112 protects legitimacy; testing should not disturb family peace and dignity.
Continuous cohabitation and fulfilment of marital duties.

Respondent (Husband)

Direct allegation of infidelity; named the alleged father.
DNA test is the most reliable method to prove non-paternity.
Needs scientific proof to support divorce grounds.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s direction for a DNA test. The Court noted that Section 112 was framed without modern science in mind. When reliable scientific evidence conflicts with a legal presumption, courts may rely on science to reach the truth and do justice.

If the wife declined the test, the court could draw an adverse presumption under Section 114(h). Where DNA shows non-paternity, a husband cannot be compelled to bear legal fatherhood against science.

Result: HC order affirmed; DNA testing permitted to test the allegation.

Ratio Decidendi

The conclusive presumption in Section 112 is rebuttable in suitable cases. DNA evidence, being precise and globally accepted, can rebut it. Courts should not let a legal presumption defeat clear scientific truth.

Why It Matters

Balances family dignity with truth-seeking through reliable science.
Guides Family Courts on when to allow DNA tests in legitimacy disputes.
Clarifies use of Section 114(h) when a party refuses testing.

Key Takeaways

Science First

DNA tests can rebut Section 112’s presumption in proper cases.

Refusal = Risk

Refusal of a lawful test may invite adverse inference under Section 114(h).

Justice Focus

Presumptions serve justice; they should not block the truth.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “LEGIT → TEST → TRUST”

LEGIT: Section 112 presumes legitimacy.
TEST: DNA test may be ordered to verify truth.
TRUST: Courts trust solid science over bare presumption.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Can DNA testing rebut Section 112 and what if a party refuses?

Rule

Sections 112 & 114(h) of the Evidence Act; Family Court powers.

Application

Alleged non-paternity tested via DNA; presumption may be rebutted.

Conclusion

HC order for DNA test sustained; adverse inference on refusal.

Glossary

Presumption: A legal rule that assumes a fact is true until proved otherwise.
Non-access: Spouses did not have the chance to have sexual relations during the conception period.
Adverse Presumption: Court infers the missing answer/evidence would go against the refusing party.

Student FAQs

The Supreme Court allowed the direction for a DNA test and confirmed that scientific proof can rebut the Section 112 presumption when justice requires.

No. Section 112 still protects legitimacy. But in rare, fit cases, reliable DNA proof can rebut it.

The court may draw an adverse presumption under Section 114(h) that the test would have gone against the refusing party.

Yes. It guides all cases where legal presumptions meet modern scientific evidence.