Case name IVAN RATHINAM VERSUS MILAN JOSEPH
Case number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 413 OF 2025
Date: 28-01-2025
Quorum: SURYA KANT, J.
FACTS OF THE CASE
This case revolves around the two long decades of legal battle concerning the paternity and maintenance of the respondent, Milan joseph. The appellant in the present case Ivan Rathinam challenged the order of the Kerala high court in upheld the judgment of the family courts order which revived the maintenance petition. The key factors involved in the case :
- The one Milan Joseph was born in 2001 for the legally wedded couples. It was stated in his birth certificate that his father is one Mr. Raju Kurain
- The mother of milan later stated that the biological father of the milan is Ivan Rathinam who she had an extramarital affair with.
- In 2007, both milan and his mother filed an original suit before a munsif court seeking declaration of Ivan Rathinam as the biological father of the milan.
- The munsif court ordered Ivan Rathinam to take a DNA analysis which was later dismissed by an appeal before the kerala high court. It stated that it violated the right to privacy and dignity of Ivan Rathinam.
- The multiple case where filed and the court eventually ruled that raj Kurain is the biological father of the milan
- Despite the multiple decisions Milan field and revival maintenance petition in 2015 by quoting his financial hardship, the family court accepted the petition.
- The same was appealed in Kerala high court and it upheld the decision of the family court
- Now the case is before the supreme court challenging the order of the kerala high court.
ISSUES
- Whether the presumption of the legitimacy under the section 112 of Indian evidence act,1872 determines paternity?
- Whether the civil courts have the jurisdiction to entertain the original suit on paternity?
- Whether the family court will revive the maintenance petition?
- Whether the second litigation initiated by Milan is subject to res Judicata ?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 112, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
- Sections 7 & 8, Family Courts Act, 1984
- Section 151, Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908
- Doctrine of Res Judicata (Section 11, CPC)
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS FOR APPELLANT
- Presumption of legitimacy
Milan’s mother and Raju Kurian were legally married and cohabiting at the time of Milan’s birth. As per the section 112 of the evidence act it is concluded that milan is Kurians son
- No grounds for reopening the maintenance petition
The order of the Family court had explicitly mentioned that the petition could only be revived or reopened if the civil court’s decision favored Milan, but in the present case it was not in favour of milan.
- Barred by Res Judicata –
The Kerala High Court’s 2011 order on Milan’s legitimacy had attained finality which ruled that the legitimate father of Milan is one Mr. Ram Kurian. The same issue could not be reopened or revived under the context of maintenance.
- Violation of privacy and dignity
A DNA test should not be ordered for all the cases it needs to be proven with evidence or there should be prima facie not for just Milan’s curiosity. The courts should prioritize the right to dignity and privacy of Rathinam and Milan’s mother.
ARGUMENTS FOR RESPONDENT
- Differences between paternity and legitimacy
The respondent argued that though it was established that he may be the legitimate son of raju Kurian under the section 112 but he has the right to know his biological paternity for maintenance purposes.
- Right to maintenance
In the present case though he is legitimate son to raju Kurian that doesn’t restrict him from claiming maintenance from his biological father under section 125 CRPC
- Family Court jurisdiction
The respondent argued that the Munisf court had no authority to decide the case of paternity, hence it doesn’t not bar the family court from determining maintenance from his biological father
- Right to know biological parentage
The respondent has the right to know his biological father; it was in his best interest.
ANALYSIS
- The supreme court of India noted that the concept of legitimacy and paternity are not independent concepts. If the legitimacy under section 112 then his legal paternity is also established unless non—access is proven.
- The munsiff court has the jurisdiction over the original suit on paternity and the family court is erred in reviving the maintenance petition in the year 2015.
- The Kerala high court judgment of 2011 had conclusively ruled on Milan’s legitimacy despite reopening the case for maintenance is violative of the principle of res Judicata.
- The supreme court India emphasised that ordering for DNA tests without strong justification would violate the right to privacy and dignity of the appellant Rathinam.
JUDGMENT
- The supreme court of india allowed the appeal and set aside the high court 2018 order.
- The family courts order in reviving the maintenance petition was also quashed.
- They reaffirmed Milan’s legitimacy as Raju Kurian son, not the son of rathinam.
- The supreme court ordered that any claim by milan against Rathinam for maintenance or paternity was dismissed.
CONCLUSION
This judgment by the supreme court of India reiterated the importance of the concept of legitimacy under section 112 of the evidence act and the significance of finality in judicial proceedings. Through this judgment the supreme court put an end to the two-decade long legal battle upholding the legal consistency and protecting the individuals’ rights and dignity.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: MUTHULAKSHMI B
