Importance of DNA Test: A Discussion in the Context of Adultery as a Ground for Divorce
In 1980s court was of the strict opinion that DNA testing hampers the privacy between the parties to the marriage, and was not relied upon. The conclusive proof of legitimacy of a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage was significantly analysed under section 112 of the Evidence Act and was based on the maxim “pater est quem numtioe demonstrant”, meaning thereby “the father is he, whom the nuptials indicate”.
Basically, this section was formulated in year 1872, nearly 140 years ago. But, in last three decades, there is an unpredictable growth of scientific temperament. And, even the Legal Community is showing the impression of the same.
The Courts readily admits the scientific evidences in case of theft, rape, murder and what not. But it is far beyond the reasonable understanding as why the issue of legitimacy is left open, to be decided by the legal interpretations and not by scientific techniques.
Here, introduction and admission of DNA technology can actually be fruitful, to meet the ends of the justice. The development in DNA based studies is vast, complex and expanding on a monthly basis. Inspite of repeated legal challenges, mainly in the USA, no two persons other then identical twins, have been found to have identical DNA profiles, the possible number of presumptions far exceeding the population of the world.
In paternity testing, DNA allows positive determination of parenthood, rather than the statistical likelihood or exclusion offered by blood typing in former years.
But still even in a recent case in 2001 Supreme Court refused to rely on the result of a DNA test and held that under sec. 112 of the Evidence Act non- access between the man and woman is the only way to raise the presumption against legitimacy. The dilemma of the Court is that accepting DNA as evidence of legitimacy is likely to render many children illegitimate and many women unchaste. This is quite unfair for the husbands, and the court appears to be saying to them that: “It is your child, unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not!” This is certainly not the solution to the problem.
The Law Commission in its 185th Report, proposed certain amendments to Section 112 which are yet to be given force. The Commission proposed that in the case of blood tests, there can be evidence by way of DNA tests to prove that a person is not the father and added three more exceptions under section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act – (a) medical tests to prove impotency (b) blood tests (c) DNA test.
As Roscoe Pound put is: “Law must be stable. But not stand still.”
Court recently from 2011 has been giving assent to such scientific evolvement to ascertain paternity but that must be with the consent of both the parties to marriage.
DNA paternity testing is the use of DNA profiling (known as genetic fingerprinting) to determine whether two individuals are biologically parent and child. A paternity test establishes genetic proof whether a man is the biological father of an individual, and a maternity test establishes whether a woman is the biological mother of an individual. Tests can also determine the likelihood of someone being a biological grandparent to a grandchild. DNA-based paternity testing has been requested to support claims for child support, inheritance, immigration and for peace in the family. More recently, DNA tests had been used to dispute false paternity claims that have already been decided in favour of the child’s mother prior to the submission of DNA evidence.
It involves a fraud perpetrated when a woman who knows, or who should know, or who has reasonable grounds to know the true biological father of her child, falsely identifies the wrong man as the biological father of her child.
The DNA test can be performed at any age and that a child can be safely tested at any age after birth.
However, the social implications are worrying. Social activist Neelam Gorhe, chairperson of Stree Aadhar Kendra, said, “The pinching issue is the blame on a woman's character. Paternity test is one tool using which a man can exert much pressure upon a woman. The problem is with the patriarchal system where a woman has to go on proving the purity of her mind, body and soul. Thus, the main problem lies in the mindset of men, and not in the test”.
The allegation of adultery and immorality sometimes extends to denying the paternity of the child. But if cohabitation is proved, or if the wife is able to prove that there was a likelihood of sexual contact during the time of conception, the courts generally uphold the validity of the marriage and paternity of child.
So the basic question which rises out of these is that whether DNA testing should be validated strictly by law or not.
Scientific Way of Test
The testing is performed by collecting buccal cells found on the inside of a person's cheek using a Buccal swab or cheek swab. These swabs have wooden or plastic stick handles with a cotton on synthetic tip. The collector rubs the inside of a person's cheek in order to collect as many Buccal cells as possible. The Buccal cells are then sent to a laboratory for testing. For paternity testing, samples from the alleged father and child would be needed. For maternity testing, samples from the alleged mother and child would be needed. After collection, the sample is mailed to a testing lab.
Some laboratories, such as the Human Origins Genotyping Laboratory (HOGL) at the University of Arizona, offer to store DNA samples for ease of future testing. All United States laboratories will destroy the DNA sample upon request by the customer guaranteeing that a sample is not available for further analysis.
The steps of the test are:-
1.Collection of samples: Cheek swab samples (or drops of blood) are obtained from the child and father using the sterile swabs provided.
2. Sending to laboratory and Lab check: Samples and completed forms are sent to the DNA testing laboratory and are checked in, identified with tracking numbers and unique test codes and assigned a confidential case file.
3. DNA extractions: DNA is extracted from the cheek swab samples (or blood) for the child and parent. The phenol-chloroform is used in the DNA extraction.
4. DNA profiles: Comparison DNA profiles are obtained using the PCR or RFLP processes.
5. DNA correlations: Identification of similar and dissimilar genetic markers are done and test result is obtained.
Known Parent (Mother)
Past And Present Situation
Marriage in Hindu society is considered to be a sacrament. It is believed to be a tie which bonds a male and female together for their entire life. Even when divorce suits are filed in Supreme Court, the judges tries their best to prevent the breakdown of the marriage to their utmost level.
So in previous days, even if a divorce suit was filed in basis of ground of adultery or bigamy, being a ground for divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, DNA test was forbidden as it was considered to hamper the privacy between the couples.
In a significant shift from the age-old legal convention that prioritised a child’s legitimacy in a marriage over a divorce being sought on the ground of infidelity by a partner, the Supreme Court ruled that a DNA test can be ordered by courts as a “legitimate and scientifically perfect” tool to establish adultery in divorce cases.
We all have a unique DNA pattern that is inherited from our biological parents and is similar to theirs in molecular structure and genetic code. Because of this similarity, the DNA can be used to test and conclusively determine biological kinship. When the testing is done to determine who the father is, it is known as DNA Paternity Testing. It is about 99.99% conclusive by PCR method. It is usually not necessary to do maternity testing. DNA Paternity Testing is now widely used for scientific purposes, to determine paternity concerns, or to settle legal disputes.
Different countries around the world have different rules and regulations regarding DNA Paternity Testing. But in a majority of cases, it is not legal to conduct a DNA Paternity Test without the prior DNA Paternity Testing done for personal purposes at home using DNA Testing Kits cannot be used as evidence in a legal court. For legal purposes, a Chain of Custody documentation process that follows due legal procedures is required.
Many countries have restrictions/regulations on the human genetics testing. As an example, in Britain there were no restrictions on paternity tests until the Human Tissue Act came into force in September 2006. Section 45 of Britain states that it is an offence to possess without appropriate consent any human bodily material with the intent of analyzing its DNA. In the Britain, legally declared fathers have access to paternity testing services under the new regulations, provided the putative parental DNA being tested is their own. Tests are sometimes ordered by courts when proof of paternity is required. In the Britain, the Department for Constitutional Affairs accredits organizations which can conduct this testing. The Department of Health is also in the process of updating its voluntary code of practice on genetic paternity testing. In the United States, there is less regulation for the paternity testing and there are a lot of companies doing this service with the cost of about US$100/testing and about three days one testing can be done. There are paternity testing service in China and it normally offer by the legal system, such as police departments of government. In the whole world, it is a big requirement for the paternity testing and it is a big market on this testing. The profit could be more than 60%.
Several US states have already passed laws that encourage honesty about paternity, which is a better public policy.
Supreme Court Verdicts In Present Age Regarding DNA Testing
“DNA testing is the most legitimate and scientifically perfect means, which the husband could use, to establish his assertion of infidelity. This should simultaneously be taken as the most authentic, rightful and correct means also with the wife, for her to rebut the assertions made by the husband, and to establish that she had not been unfaithful, adulterous or disloyal. If the wife is right, she shall be proved to be so,” said a bench of Justices J S Khehar and R K Agrawal.
The court, which upheld an order allowing a man’s plea to have a DNA test conducted on a child born to his wife, said that but for the test, it would be impossible for the husband to establish and confirm the assertions of adultery made against him in his divorce petition. It also sought to balance the rights of the parties by allowing the spouse to decline the test on the child at his or her own peril since the trial court could then draw adverse inferences from such a refusal. The DNA tests are now being often ordered by courts for determination of paternity, but allowing such scientific examinations for deciding upon the issue of infidelity too tends to move away from legal precedents. In a body of judgements, the Supreme Court has accorded precedence to the legitimacy of a child born out of valid wedlock, while snubbing the requests for carrying out such tests on the child to establish adultery. Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act also creates a legal presumption that the birth of a child during marriage would be a “conclusive proof of legitimacy.”
The Supreme Court, in a 2001 judgment, had held: “The result of a genuine DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate. But even that is not enough to escape from the conclusiveness of Section 112 of the Act, e.g, if a husband and wife were living together during the time of conception but the DNA test revealed that the child was not born to the husband, the conclusiveness in law would remain unrebuttable.”
It had again, in 2009, ruled that “even the evidence of adultery by wife which though amounts to very strong evidence, it, by itself, is not quite sufficient to repel this presumption and will not justify finding of illegitimacy if husband has had access to her”. Similarly, several other judgements held that protecting the legitimacy of a child was paramount and have to give way to other considerations.
The court further noted that by allowing DNA tests in such cases, “undoubtedly the issue of legitimacy would also be incidentally involved” but it could not be lost sight of that the purpose of such a plea would be to establish the ingredients of Section 13(1)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which laid down infidelity as a ground for divorce.
Ø The case of Dukhtar Jahan vs Mohammed Farooq on 20 January, 1987, is an unfortunate case where the High Court has quashed an order of maintenance passed in favour of a minor child Tarana after the divorce of the married couple. The appellant Dukhtar Jahan and the respondent Mohammed Farooq who were already related as first cousins, being the issues of two sisters, were married on 11.5.1973. The marriage lasted only for about 17 months since the respondent divorced the appellant on 16.10.1974. However, when the parties were in wedlock the appellant delivered a female child named Tarana Farooq on 5.12.1973. The appellant asked for grant of maintenance to her and the child at Rs.150 p.m. and Rs.50 p.m. respectively. The appellant however gave up the claim of maintenance for herself as the stand of the respondent was that he had paid her the Maher and the amount payable for the Iddat period and that he had also returned all the articles given by way of dowry. Though trial court allowed the claim reducing the amount to Rs.30p.m,looking into the financial status of the respondent, high court quashed the order just looking into the fact that the child was born just 7months after the wedding and was in fully mature state at birth which is not supposed to happen at such premature time. Fortunately Supreme Court looked into all the facts and allowed the maintenance granted by the trial court. If the appellant was pregnant even at the time of the marriage she could not have concealed that fact for long and in any event the respondent would have come to know of it within two or three months of the marriage and thereupon he would have immediately protested and either discarded the appellant or reported the matter to the village elders and relatives and sought for a divorce. On the contrary the respondent had continued to lead life with the appellant in a normal manner till the birth of the child. Even the confinement appears to have taken place in his house as otherwise the child's birth would not have been registered in his village. The respondent had not disowned the child immediately after its birth or sent away the appellant to her parents' house. Such would not have been his conduct if he had any doubt about the paternity of the child.
Moreover, there is an entry in the birth register setting out the respondent as the father of the child. Though the respondent has attempted to neutralise the entry in birth register making it appear that the entry had been made on the basis of information given by a third party, the lower courts have refused to give credence to the vague and uncorroborated testimony. It is also significant to note that the respondent had allowed eleven months to pass before effecting a divorce. By his inaction for such a long period the respondent has given room for inference that the divorce may have been effected for other reasons and not on account of the appellant giving birth to a child conceived through someone else.
Lastly, even if the child had been born after a full term pregnancy it has to be born in mind that the possibility of the respondent having had access to the appellant before marriage cannot be ruled out because they were closely related and would therefore have been moving in close terms. All these factors negate the plea of the respondent that the minor child was not lathered by him.
But thought the case which completely went on the basis of uncertainty of the “paternity" issue, unfortunately nowhere was DNA testing called upon to ascertain that.
Supreme court relying upon its judgment in this case observed that such a test should not be directed for upholding the legitimacy of a child unless the facts are compulsive and clinching as to necessarily warrant a finding that a child could not at all have been begotten to the father and such a legitimating of the child would result in rank injustice to the father.
The Apex Court further remarked Courts have always desisted from lightly or hastily rendering a verdict and that too on the basis of slender materials which will have the effect of branding a child as a bastard and its mother unchaste woman.
Ø In the case of Anil Kumar vs Turaka Kondala Rao and another, The facts in brief are that the petitioner's mother and her sister were taken away by the respondent who was working as Station Superintendent of Bellamkonda Railway Station during 1989-90 with the permission of their father. It so happened that the mother of petitioner's mother died and hence the respondent approached her father asking him to send both these girls with him. Accordingly the petitioner's mother and her sister were lodged in the Railway quarters where he was residing with his wife. He did not be get any children through his wife. Some time later he shifted the mother of the petitioner and her sister to a rented house at Nadikudi. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent developed illicit intimacy with his mother and kept her as his wife. The petitioner was born on 7-12-1990 at St. Joseph's Hospital, Guntur. He sought for maintenance of Rs.500/- per month on the ground that the respondent was drawing a salary of Rs.3,500/ - and he owned a house at Winchipet, Vijayawada worth Rs.3 lakhs. The respondent resisted the petition denying the above allegations. He contended that the mother of the petitioner developed illicit intimacy with one Sanjeeviah, Inspector of Works, South Central Railway, Nadikudi and one Patnaik, Assistant Station Master at Bellamkonda Railway Station.
DNA test being conducted and the respondent, represented by Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, submitted himself to DNA test with his own free volition. Thus, the petitioner as well as the respondent were referred to the Centre for DNA Finger Printing and Diagnostics, CCMB Campus, Hyderabad.
DNA test proved respondent –father to be a biological father of the petitioner.
Maintenance was granted from the date of petition on the basis of DNA Test.
In India DNA testing got legal validity in 1989. Parentage identification deals with
paternity/maternity legitimacy of the child etc. in child abandonment cases DNA test is necessary to prove child’s maternity. Property disputes, inheritance, maintenance, rape and many other issues. DNA is necessary to reach the finality and justness of the issue. It is however not clear whether DNA test can be used in cases governed by Sec.112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Ø Again in the case of appellant Kamti Devi vs Poshi Ram the marriage between the couple was solemnised in the year 1975. For almost fifteen years thereafter Kamti Devi remained childless and on 4.9.1989 she gave birth to a male child (his name is Roshan Lal). The long period in between was marked by internecine legal battles in which the spouses engaged as against each other. Soon after the birth of the child it was sought to be recorded in the Register under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. The husband filed a civil suit for a decree declaring that his is not the father of the child, as he had no access to the appellant Kamti Devi during the period when the child would have been begotten.
The trial court, on the basis of admitted fact that the parties are spouses of a valid marriage and that the marriage subsisted on the date of birth of the child, relied on the conclusive presumption mentioned in Section 112 of the Act. The trial court further held that the husband failed to prove that he has no access to his wife Kamti Devi during the relevant period. Accordingly the suit was dismissed.
But the first appellate court, after re-evaluating the entire evidence, found that the husband plaintiff succeeded in discharging the burden for rebutting the presumption by proving that he had no access to the mother of the child during a very long stretch of time covering the relevant period. On the strength of the said finding the first appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff is not the father of the child Roshan Lal. The High Court refused to interfere with the aforesaid finding in the second appeal on the premise that "the question whether Roshan Lal ils the son of the plaintiff is a pure question of fact which calls for no interference by the Court in the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure." Learned counsel for the appellant raised two contentions. First is that the District Court went wrong in relying on the interested evidence of the plaintiff. Second is that the High Court failed in formulating the substantial question of law involved in this case as to whether the burden of husband-plaintiff (to prove that he had no access to his wife) is as heavy as the burden of prosecution in a criminal case to prove the guilt of the accused.
In this case it was concluded that Dioxy Nucleic Acid (DNA) as well as Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) tests were not even in contemplation of the legislature. The result of a genuine DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate. But even that is not enough to escape from the conclusiveness of Section 112 of the Act, e.g. if a husband and wife were living together during the time of conception but the DNA test revealed that the child was not born to the husband, the conclusiveness in law would remain unrebuttable. This may look hard from the point of view of the husband who would be compelled to bear the fatherhood of a child of which he may be innocent. But even in such a case the law leans in favour of the innocent. But even in such a case the law leans in favour of the innocent child from being bastardized if his mother and her spouse were living together during the time of conception. Hence the question regarding the degree of proof of non-access for rebutting the conclusiveness must be answered in the light of what is meant by access or non-access as delineated above.
Judgment of the Supreme Court in 1993 also highlighted the fact that there is no provision in Indian laws to force or compel people to undergo blood tests or any other type of DNA testing.
The apex court held that DNA test is not to be directed as matter of routine and only in deserving cases such as direction can be given. The Court gave priority to social parentage over biological parentage and thereby rejected DNA evidence by observing that though the result of a genuine DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate it is not enough to escape from the conclusiveness of Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Ø A valuable right of a party to prove paternity by DNA testing has been tried, tested and proved. A person can now be physically compelled to give a blood sample for DNA profiling in compliance with a Civil Court order in a paternity action. The erudite judgment of the Delhi High Court on 27 th April, 2012 in Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari, has held that once a matrimonial or civil court exercises its inherent power to order a person to submit to a medical examination or it directs holding of a scientific, technical or expert investigation, which is resisted or refused by a party, the Court is entitled to enforce such direction and not simply take the refusal on record to draw an adverse inference therefrom. The Court also settled the issue that such mandatory testing upon an unwilling person is not violative of the Right to Life or Privacy of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution though the power to direct a DNA test should be exercised after weighing all " pros and cons " and satisfying the " test of eminent need ". A Congress leader N.D. Tiwari was locked in a paternity suit. A single-judge bench of the high court had on December 23 asked Defendant to undergo a DNA test on the paternity suit filed by Rohit Shekhar who claims to be his biological son born out of the leader's alleged relationship with his mother Ujjawala Sharma who is also a Congress activist The court had asked him to undergo the test saying that wider interest of a child of not being declared a bastard has to be kept in mind. The politician then approached a division bench of the High Court which refused to grant him relief on the DNA test and also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000. Tiwari, who has held the posts of Chief Minister of undivided Uttar Pradesh and later Uttarakhand, had opposed the paternity suit filed by Shekhar. He was forced to resign as Governor in the midst of allegations of sexual misconduct, had countered the charges claiming that he never had any physical relationship with Ujjawala, who is also a Congress activist, and Shekhar was not entitled to seek a DNA test as a matter of right. The high court had Feb 10 dismissed Tiwari's petition challenging the DNA test order.
The Supreme Court has held that DNA test in a paternity suit cannot be ordered by courts in a routine manner but should be directed only in exceptional cases as it would otherwise be an invasion of a person's privacy. "In our view, when there is apparent conflict between the right to privacy of a person not to submit himself forcibly to medical examination and duty of the court to reach the truth, the court must exercise its discretion only after balancing the interests of the parties and on due consideration whether for a just decision in the matter, DNA test is eminently needed.”
"DNA test in a matter relating to paternity of a child should not be directed by the court as a matter of course or in a routine manner whenever such a request is made," a Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha said in a judgement. The apex court passed the judgement while setting aside an Orissa High Court order which had upheld the direction of the Orissa State Women's Commission for conduct of a DNA test to determine the paternity dispute of a couple.
Ø The Supreme Court's September 15,2014 decision in the case of Dipanwita Roy vs Ronobroto Roy comes as quite a shocker, because it provides a legally sanctioned mechanism for a husband to accuse his wife of infidelity and adultery, and subject her to indignity.
The petitioner wife had appealed against the Calcutta High Court's direction that either she submit to letting her child undergo a DNA test, or accept the accusation of adultery which her husband had levelled against her. After four years of marriage, the husband had accused her of being ill-mannered, arrogant, extravagant in her tastes, disrespectful towards his mother, and of having an affair with a man who he claimed was the real father of the daughter born to the couple. Quite significantly, and even the Supreme Court in its decision acknowledged this, the husband demanded the DNA test not to prove the child's paternity, but as a testament of his wife's "going astray". He had filed for divorce and cited adultery as one of the principal grounds.
"It is sublime social policy that children should not suffer social disability on account of their parent's actions", the Supreme Court had said in the Kamti Devi case (2001), while ruling that DNA tests for determining paternity should not be allowed as a routine matter because the results could effectively impose a permanent stigma of illegitimacy on a child. Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act states that a child born to a married couple shall be presumed to be legitimate. This can of course be disproved, but the burden is on the husband to do so. And the evidence in such a situation, though not as rigorous as that in criminal law, must be higher than that of mere weighing of possibilities. While ruling in a similar case last year, the Karnataka High Court had dismissed a husband's claim with a stinging rebuke - that a DNA test cannot be allowed as some modern day agni pariksha.
In the present case, the court didn't have to do more than asking the husband to prove that it wasn't possible for him to have any physical relations with his wife for fathering a child. Usually, in such cases, when the couple are no longer staying together, this is the standard adopted. But here the facts were different- the wife was staying with her parents after childbirth, and had gone back to her husband once she had recovered from the post-partum stress.
Instead, in a shocking leap of logic, the court ignored evident facts and thrust the burden on the wife. She had to agree to the DNA test. Of course, she wouldn't be compelled to do so, but her refusal would result in automatic validation of the husband's charges.
But this error, although grave, is only a comparatively minor harm that this judgement causes. By setting a precedent of allowing suspicious husbands to hold their wives to ransom, it indirectly contributes to the rising instances of domestic violence, many of which also end up in murder. Studies have conclusively proved that a particular kind of jealousy- suspicion of the wife or female partner's infidelity acts as a trigger for beatings, abuse, and killings. There is also a vocal, and justified demand for consigning the offence of adultery to the bin of obsolete, regressive laws.
In such circumstances, unfortunately, this judgement strengthens misogyny in a society already reeling from it.
In view of the above quoted instances, today, the most debatable question which generates thoughts amongst jurists, judges, scientists, lawyers and academicians, irrespective of any legal system, is as to how the present value based system of justice requires to be changed or modified or re-oriented for the purposes of utilizing the advantages of modern scientific discoveries and technological advancements in the justice delivery system
The time for denial of admitting DNA evidence is over. We know that the present system has identifiable flaws. Law has to grow in order to satisfy the need of the fast changing society and keep abreast with the scientific developments taking place in the country. The courts are very cautious in following for this test as they think, that may go against the basic principles of the Human Rights, as the order for such test may interfere with the personal liberty of that person guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution, which must be just, fair and reasonable one. The courts also feel that such an order may violate the right of an accused person protected under Art. 20 (3) of the Constitution .I most humbly feel that this is a one sided approach of the court. Will it not be a violation of Human Rights in case of a child whose father denies his acceptance as a biological father? In such a delicate situation which father i.e. whether societal or biological shall have the right as well as the duty towards the child? Will the child not have the right to see that his or her Human Rights should also be protected and overlooked by the courts?
Some positive steps have been taken by the Government of India after a long time by proposing to adopt DNA tests in matters relating to paternity disputes under section 112 of the Evidence Act. The Law Commission of India in its 185th report has recommended Indian Evidence Act (Amendment) Bill, 2003 which makes provision for DNA tests in paternity disputes by the consent of the man, and in case of child by the permission of the Court. The Parliament has already established Advisory Committee to look into some of these aspects. One can hope this is sorted out at the earliest so that we can proceed with full swiftness on this path in the furtherance of truth. Then only the real meaning of “Satyamev Jayate” can be really manifested.
So, a final solution to all this dilemma and uncertainty can be the DNA mapping and comparison of DNA of a child and the parents. In the recent case of State through C.B.I. v. Amaramani Tripathi the paternity of a six months old fetus in the womb of deceased was conclusively established with the help of DNA test. Further, the Courts, these days, is heavily relying on scientific proofs, in the cases of murder and rape. Even there are cases where the conviction is made by following the medical evidences. So, it is high-time that the scientific aptitude should be brought in the issue of determination of legitimacy of a child and most importantly when it becomes a disputed ground for divorce.
# 2 Flavia Agnes, “Family Law” , (1d ed. 2011) Page 129
# Hongbao Ma, Huaijie Zhu, Fangxia Guan , Shen Cherng, Paternity Testing Journal of American Science, 2(4), 2006
# Journal of American Science, Supra n.5
# DNA PROFILING - Comes of Age, Anil Malhotra