Illegitimate Child Is Also Eligible For Maintenance, But Paternity Is Relevant Aspect To Be Established: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has held that an illegitimate child is also eligible for the maintenance but for that, paternity is a relevant aspect to be established.

A Single Bench of Justice Mary Joseph observed, “If the respondent was not in cohabitation with the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner was not born to him in the cohabitation as contended by him, he need not have to pay any money to them as maintenance allowance. … True that an illegitimate child is also eligible for maintenance allowance but, for that paternity is a very relevant aspect to be established so as to enable the court to direct payment from the respondent who was alleged as his father.”

The Bench said that the court below correctly issued a direction for the conduct of the blood test of the man for DNA analysis by the order under challenge.

Advocates Thomas M. Jacob and H.P. Shaboo appeared for the petitioner while Advocate Pradeesh Chacko appeared for the respondents.

Factual Background -

A plea was filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Family Court and the respondents had filed a plea seeking direction to the petitioner to undergo a DNA test for proving the paternity and to get it approved by the court that he was the father. The respondents were a mother and her minor daughter respectively. The said minor girl was born to the petitioner during the long cohabitation of her mother with him as they both fell in love and lived together as husband and wife.

When the aforesaid woman got conceived from the petitioner, he sent her to her house back and then promised her over the telephone that he will marry her and look after the child in her womb. However, thereafter, she came to know that the petitioner had married another lady. Upon a complaint filed before the Kerala Women’s Commission, the petitioner was ordered to undergo a blood test for DNA examination but the same was not materialized due to his non-cooperation.

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “This Court has no hesitation to hold that the photographs can be considered as prima facie evidence justifying the averments of the 1st petitioner about long cohabitation with the respondent and birth of the 2nd petitioner in the said cohabitation.”

The Court said that when a prima facie case of cohabitation is made out by the respondent from the materials produced and relied on and the petitioner stands thoroughly failed to establish a prima facie case of alleged immoral life led by the respondent with other persons named in his objection, her prayer to issue direction to the petitioner to subject himself to the blood test for determination of DNA cannot be thrown aside.

“If an order of the nature is declined that would have the impact of bastardising the minor girl child among the public. Undoubtedly that would caste a social stigma upon the child as well as the mother respectively as ‘bastard’ and ‘immoral’”, held the Court.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plea and refused to interfere with the order under challenge.

Cause Title- V.O. Mathew v. Aliesha & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2023:KER:37957)

Click here to read/download the Judgment