A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 112 – Legitimacy of child – Presumption of -- DNA Test – DNA test is an accurate test and on that basis it is clear that the appellant is not the biological father of the girl-child – Condition precedent for invocation of Section 112 of the Evidence Act has been established and no finding with regard to the plea of the husband that he had no access to his wife at the time when the child could have been begotten has been recorded – Although Section 112 raises a presumption of conclusive proof on satisfaction of the conditions enumerated therein but the same is rebuttable -- While the truth or fact is known, there is no need or room for any presumption -- Where there is evidence to the contrary, the presumption is rebuttable and must yield to proof -- Interest of justice is best served by ascertaining the truth and the court should be furnished with the best available science and may not be left to bank upon presumptions, unless science has no answer to the facts in issue –When there is a conflict between a conclusive proof envisaged under law and a proof based on scientific advancement accepted by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over the former.

(Para 16)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 112 – Legitimacy of child – Presumption of -- Distinction between a legal fiction and the presumption of a fact -- Legal fiction assumes existence of a fact which may not really exist -- However presumption of a fact depends on satisfaction of certain circumstances -- Section 112 of the Evidence Act does not create a legal fiction but provides for presumption.

(Para 18)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 112 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance to child -- Legitimacy of child – Presumption of – DNA Test – Value of -- Husband’s plea that he had no access to the wife when the child was begotten stands proved by the DNA test report – Court cannot compel the appellant to bear the fatherhood of a child, when the scientific reports prove to the contrary – Innocent child may not be bastardized as the marriage between her mother and father was subsisting at the time of her birth, but in view of the DNA test reports Court cannot forestall the consequence -- “Truth must triumph” is the hallmark of justice.

(Para 1, 19, 21)

A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens  Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 -- Object and reason of the Act – Literal interpretation – Provisions of the Maintenance Act have to be interpreted in the light of the object and reasons – Provisions are to be construed on literal interpretation, besides taking into consideration the intention of the Legislation.

(Para 12,13)

B. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens  Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 -- Ejectment of premises -- Maintenance Act is not restricted to only providing maintenance but cast an obligation on the persons who inherit the property of their aged relatives to maintain such aged relatives -- One of the major aims was to provide for the institutionalization of a suitable mechanism for the protection of ‘life and property of older persons’ – An order of ejectment can be passed by the Tribunal in favour of a senior citizen.

(Para 17)

C. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens  Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 – ‘Transfer’ -- ‘otherwise’ – Meaning of -- Property transferred by gift or otherwise would include the transfer of the possession of a property or part of it by a senior citizen -- The word “otherwise” used under Section 23 (1) of the Maintenance Act by the legislation would include transfer of ownership, transfer of possession by way of a lease deed, mortgage, gift or sale deed – Even a transfer of possession to a licencee by a senior citizen will also fall under the ambit of Section 23 (1) of the Maintenance Act -- The word “otherwise” cannot be ignored for the objective of Section 23 (1) of the Maintenance Act -- In context to the objectives of the Act, “transfer” would mean that transfer of property by senior citizen need not be a gift only but it could be any transfer within the meaning of Transfer of Property Act or would even include transferring of any right of the nature of title or possession.

(Para 20)

D. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens  Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 – Transfer of property – Non-providing of amenities and physical needs to senior citizen -- If the transfer is subject to a condition that transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and transferee refused to do so, the transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion or undue influence and would be declared so by the Maintenance Tribunal on the option of transferor -- A senior citizen who had transferred his right, title or interest to any other person by gift or otherwise (which would include transfer of possession by lease, mortgage or licence) would become void in the event of transferee refusing to provide amenities and physical needs -- The said transfer in such circumstances would be termed as fraud and would be void.

(Para 20)

E. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens  Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 – Fraud -- Word “fraud” used in the Maintenance Act has to be understood in context to its meaning given by different Courts at different times :

(i)    An act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. “fraud” vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter.  S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853

(ii)   fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res-judicata. Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and others, (2003) 8 SCC 319.

(Para 21,22)

F. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens  Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 – Transfer of property – Non-providing of amenities and physical needs to senior citizen -- Possession of property has been handed over to the petitioners with an implied latent promise that the petitioners transferee would at least vouch for the welfare of the transferor – Petitioners/transferee have apparently failed to provide for the amenities, physical needs or even care for the welfare of respondent No.5 giving a cause of action to respondent No.5 to seek the protection of Section 23 (1) of the Maintenance Act and get the transfer by way of possession declared void bringing the act of the petitioners under the definition of fraud -- In view of the law that fraud vitiates all proceedings and vests no right in anybody, respondent No.5 would be entitled to enforce his legal right to declare the transfer i.e. transfer of possession which falls under the definition of ‘otherwise’ under Section 23 (1) of the Maintenance Act, void.

(Para 23)

G. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens  Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 16 – Haryana Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules,  2009, Rule 17 – Appeal by transferee – Maintainability of -- Appeal is not maintainable under Section 16 (1) of the Maintenance Act on behalf of the transferee, as it is only a senior citizen or a parent who has been given authority to file appeal, in case any adverse order is passed by the Tribunal against him.

(Para 26)

H. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens  Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 7 – Allegation of biasness against the member of Tribunal – Principle of estopple -- Contention that one of the members of the Tribunal had bias against the petitioners being an attesting witness to the Will of respondent No.5 – Held, it transpires that the said plea had not been taken before the Tribunal -- Once the petitioners had surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, they cannot later on raise a plea regarding the competence of the Tribunal -- The said plea of bias is barred by the principle of estoppel.

(Para 27)

A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 -- Domestic violence case -- Limitation -- In case of decree of divorce, the limitation to file proceedings is only one year -- In case of subsisting relationship of husband and wife, there is no limitation -- Complaint under the D.V. Act can be filed at any time as the physical and mental harassment within the family is a continuing offence.

(Para 6)

B. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A -- FIR u/s 498A IPC – Maintainability of complaint under DV act -- Whether complaint under D.V. Act, is maintainable where a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is already pending? -- Both the cases are of different nature and have no bearing upon each other -- However, a Magistrate in proceedings under the D.V. Act, can also add Section 498-A IPC in order to inflict punishment upon the offender -- Held, both proceedings are of different nature and can be filed separately -- Proceedings under the D.V Act can continue on the same set of facts of a case under Section 406, 498-A IPC.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14(2), 30 – Property of Hindu Female – Absolute right -- A female is entitled to claim absolute right, if she has a pre-existing right or the property is held by her in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance or acquired by inheritance, under a partition or any gift from any person before or after her marriage or acquired such property by her own skill or exertion or purchased or by prescription -- Where a female acquires a property by way of a gift or under a Will or any other instrument or the decree or award conferring a restricted estate, in such property she cannot claim any expansive right therein.

(Para 8)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14(2), 30 – Will – Limited property rights to wife -- Executor of Will gave limited interest in the property to second wife during her life time and it devolves upon his sons of first wife after her death and in the event the sons pre-deceased her, property goes to children of his son -- Intention of the testator is clear to convey/bequeath the property ultimately to the son/ or/and his children and under no situation any right was conferred over the property as an absolute owner upon second wife – Children from second wife acquire no rights on death of their mother.

(Para 8-10)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 5,9,10,11,12,13 -- Bigamous marriage – Void declaration – Maintenance pendentlite – Permanent alimony -- Held, when the legislature has used such wide expression as ‘at the time of passing of any decree,’ it encompasses within the expression all kinds of decrees such as restitution of conjugal rights u/s Section 9, judicial separation u/s 10, declaring marriage as null and void u/s 11, annulment of marriage as voidable u/s 12 and Divorce u/s 13 -- Keeping into consideration the statutory Hindu Law, a bigamous marriage may be declared illegal being in contravention of the provisions of the Act but it cannot be said to be immoral so as to deny even the right of alimony or maintenance to a spouse financially weak and economically dependent.

(Para 13)