Indian Judiciary and Law system always supported Women; Whatever crime she may committed; Law term her as Victim only. In India Marriage is considered as Holy Union, but Indian Judiciary shield Women if she has/had extra marital Affairs; no matter whom she slept and had child but our great law think, that illagitimate child is of the man whom she is married.
In N D Tiwari and Ujjwala Sharma case; Indian Judiciary is not talking about Ujjwala Sharma was cheating on Bipin Sharma; there is no punishment for having extra marital Affair;
No conpensation for Bipin Sharma, as he was cheated for almost 30 years, as he was thinking Rohit is his son. As he raised him as his Own Blood.
Indian Henpecked Judges do not have capacity to think what is right and what is wrong.
They not only support extra marital Affair of Women but encouraging by Giving judgments in favor of women.
NEW DELHI: A recent DNA test proved that Rohit Shekhar was born to Congress leader N D Tiwari and Ujjwala Sharma. The conception in the late 1970s happened when Ujjwala’s marriage to Bipin Sharma was subsisting. Ujjwala married Sharma in 1962 and divorced in 2006. Before Rohit, the couple had another son in the late 1960s.
During the subsistence of marriage, Ujjwala neither claimed to have stopped Sharma’s access to her for a considerable period of time prior to conceiving Rohit nor had she declared her intimacy with Tiwari, which came to light only after Rohit filed a paternity suit in the Delhi high court in September 2007.
After nearly five years of an emotionally draining litigation under full public glare, Rohit and his mother Ujjwala claimed victory on Friday. The DNA test report nailed 87-year-old Tiwari for the consensual physical intimacy he had with Ujjwala more than three decades ago and the biological consequence thereof.
The test findings were expected given Tiwari’s obstinate resistance to giving blood sample. But it does not make Rohit an illegitimate child nor does it confer any legal obligation on Tiwari towards Ujjwala or his biological son. coz Indian Judiciary is not capable to think beyond what already written in law books even time changes.
Right from 1950, the Supreme Court has been consistent in its rulings on children born out of physical intimacy between a man and a woman when the latter had a subsisting marriage with another man, a situation identical to the Tiwari-Ujjwala-Rohit biological triangle.
Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act says, “The fact that any person born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within 280 days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten.”
This would mean that Rohit continues to be the legitimate son born of the wedlock between Sharma and Ujjwala. For, in 2009, the SC in Shyam Lal vs Sanjeev Kumar had said, “On ground of public policy, it is undesirable to enquire into the paternity of a child whose parents ‘have access’ to each other. The presumption of legitimacy arises from birth in wedlock and not from conception.”
The apex court dealt with the legitimacy issue in detail in Kamta Devi case [2001 (5) SCC311]. It said, “The maxim ‘pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant (the father is he whom the nuptials indicate)’ has gained sturdy legislative recognition which resulted in the formulation of the rule of evidence envisaged in Section 112 of the Evidence Act.”
To repeat, Sharma nor Ujjwala had never claimed absence of access to each other during the subsistence of their marriage. In such a case, can the advancement of science presenting the option of DNA test for establishing paternity alter the ground rule contemplated under Section 112 framed over 140 years ago?
The SC does not think so. In Kamta Devi case, it said, “We may note that Section 112 was enacted at a time when modern scientific advancements with DNA as well as 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, 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 husband’s point of view 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 child from being bastardized.”
Also, till 2007, when the paternity suit was filed, friends and relatives of Sharma and Ujjwala had known Rohit to be their son. This, too, is an important piece of evidence.
So, there could be no doubt that Rohit is the legitimate son of Sharma and Ujjwala. But yes, it is true that paternity quest stands on a very different wicket from legitimacy.
“Now after so many years, concealing her Affair what Ujjwala Sharma want from ND.Tiwari….? may be she is run out of Money and thought about making some big Fortune shamelessly” – Indian Common man exclaimed.
