In a legal development that has sent ripples through the corridors of the Rajasthan High Court, a single-judge bench has addressed a "rarest of rare" situation: a mother refusing to acknowledge her own daughter. While the law is well-versed in handling disputes where fathers deny their children (paternity), the court found itself in uncharted territory where a 93-year-old woman claimed that a woman asserting her right to ancestral property was not her biological child.

Justice Bipin Gupta, while hearing the case of Smt. Bhauri Devi v. Mahendra Kumar & Ors., expressed profound astonishment at the circumstances. The court observed that while society and law are accustomed to men denying paternity—often on grounds of infidelity—it is almost unheard of for a mother to deny the very child she allegedly gave birth to.

The case originated from a property dispute. The petitioner, a woman seeking her rightful share in her late father’s ancestral agricultural land, challenged a "Will" registered by her father in 2014. She argued that since the property was ancestral, her father had no legal right to "will it away" to others, and she claimed a half-share alongside her mother.

However, the legal battle took a sharp turn when the 93-year-old mother, supported by two others, filed a response in court with a shocking claim: she stated that the petitioner was not her daughter at all.

Essentially, the mother admitted she was the wife of the deceased property owner but denied that this specific child was hers. This created a unique legal vacuum.

Justice Bipin Gupta pointed out a significant gap in Indian legislation. Under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act (and the corresponding Section 113 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), there is a strong "presumption of paternity." This means if a child is born during a valid marriage, the law automatically assumes the husband is the father unless proven otherwise.

However, the legislature never specifically wrote a "presumption of maternity" into the law. Why? Because historically, it was considered a "biological certainty" who the mother was. As the saying goes, "Maternity is a fact, paternity is a matter of opinion."

The Court remarked:

"In the modern world, where everything has become materialistic, it is easy to admit or deny the parenthood of a child... the legislature never contemplated a scenario where a female might also deny a child to be hers."

The petitioner had originally asked a Trial Court to order a DNA test for her mother to prove their relationship. The Trial Court rejected this, citing "Right to Privacy" and the fact that the mother refused to give a sample.

The Rajasthan High Court, however, set aside this order. Justice Gupta held that when science has advanced to the point of providing "conclusive proof," it should be used to serve the ends of justice.

The Court laid down two critical points:

Maternity can be proven by DNA: Since there is no statutory "presumption" for mothers like there is for fathers, DNA testing is the most reliable way for a child to prove their lineage.
Consequences of Refusal: While the court cannot physically force a 93-year-old woman to give blood or saliva against her will, it can draw an "adverse inference." This means if the mother continues to refuse the test, the court will legally assume that she is hiding the truth and rule in favor of the daughter’s claim.

The High Court's observations hit a sentimental note, acknowledging how difficult it is for a child to be put in a position where they must "prove" who their mother is. In a society that revere's the maternal bond, the court found the mother's denial to be an extreme anomaly.

By ordering the DNA test, the Rajasthan High Court has ensured that technicalities and "privacy" arguments do not block the path to truth, especially when ancestral property rights are at stake.

This judgment serves as a landmark for "Maternity Disputes" in India. It establishes that in the absence of specific laws for mothers denying children, scientific evidence like DNA testing is the ultimate truth-seeker. For the 93-year-old mother, the choice is now clear: undergo the test to prove her stance, or allow the law to presume the petitioner is indeed her daughter.

Case Details:

Case Title: Smt. Bhauri Devi v. Mahendra Kumar & Ors.
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Bench: Justice Bipin Gupta