The recent reaffirmation by the supreme court of Section 112 of the indian Evidence Act has stirred intense public debate, particularly in the context of marital fidelity and paternal responsibility. As per the january 2025 ruling, if a child is born during a valid marriage, the law presumes that the husband is the legitimate father—even if there are claims of adultery—unless the husband can prove "non-access" during the time of conception. The court emphasized that dna testing cannot be demanded as a matter of right, and should not be used routinely, prioritizing the child’s welfare, privacy, and social legitimacy over the biological truth.
Critics argue that this ruling places an unjust burden on men, forcing them to assume responsibility for children who may not be biologically theirs. In essence, the law appears to privilege the sanctity of marriage over individual rights and truth, particularly for husbands who may be victims of betrayal. This decision follows earlier judicial trends like the decriminalization of adultery, which many believe already weakened the accountability framework within the institution of marriage. With this ruling, critics claim the legal system now indirectly legitimizes infidelity, making men financially and emotionally liable for children potentially fathered by others—an outcome seen by some as both morally and legally unjust.
Supporters of the judgment argue that the intent is to protect children from social stigma and ensure stable family structures, regardless of parental disputes. However, the broader perception remains that the judiciary is increasingly shifting away from traditional notions of marital responsibility and moral accountability. To many, this is seen as a systematic erosion of the indian family system, where values like fidelity, trust, and duty are being replaced with legal fictions that prioritize societal optics over truth. For a country that places high cultural importance on family integrity, such rulings raise uncomfortable questions about justice, fairness, and the future of marriage as a secure institution.
Critics argue that this ruling places an unjust burden on men, forcing them to assume responsibility for children who may not be biologically theirs. In essence, the law appears to privilege the sanctity of marriage over individual rights and truth, particularly for husbands who may be victims of betrayal. This decision follows earlier judicial trends like the decriminalization of adultery, which many believe already weakened the accountability framework within the institution of marriage. With this ruling, critics claim the legal system now indirectly legitimizes infidelity, making men financially and emotionally liable for children potentially fathered by others—an outcome seen by some as both morally and legally unjust.
Supporters of the judgment argue that the intent is to protect children from social stigma and ensure stable family structures, regardless of parental disputes. However, the broader perception remains that the judiciary is increasingly shifting away from traditional notions of marital responsibility and moral accountability. To many, this is seen as a systematic erosion of the indian family system, where values like fidelity, trust, and duty are being replaced with legal fictions that prioritize societal optics over truth. For a country that places high cultural importance on family integrity, such rulings raise uncomfortable questions about justice, fairness, and the future of marriage as a secure institution.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel