The father is he whom the marriage points out.
This maxim means “He is the father whom the nuptials point out, or whom marriage indicates.” All children born in wedlock are presumed to be the legitimate children of the husband and wife, but this is a presumption which may be re-argued. This maxim has no application in the case of a child born out of wedlock, but whose alleged father subsequently married its mother.
General presumption is that child born within the wedlock is the legitimate. And the husband of his mother considered as his father, unless some contrary are proved.
Gautam Kundu v. State of West Bengal and Another, (1993) 3 SCC 418
In the judgement of this case court mentioned that blood grouping test is a useful test to determine the question of disputed paternity. It can be relied upon by courts as a circumstantial evidence which ultimately excludes a certain individual as a father of the child. However, no person can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis against his/her will and no adverse inference can be drawn against him/her for this refusal. Courts in India cannot under blood test as a matter of course. Wherever applications are made for such prayers in order to have proving inquiry, the prayer for blood test cannot be entertained. In matters of this kind the court must have regard to Section 112 of the Evidence Act where the words ‘conclusive proof’ must be understood by their definition in Section 4. That section is based on the well known maxim Pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant (he is the father whom the marriage indicates).
C.Thangavel v. P. Vijayalakshmi, 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 8584
In the judgement of this case court mentioned that in matters of this kind the court must have regard to Section 112 of the Evidence Act. This section is based on the well-known maxim Pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant (he is the father whom the marriage indicates). The presumption of legitimacy is this, that a child born of a married woman is deemed to be legitimate, it throws on the person who is interested in making out the illegitimacy, the whole burden of proving it. The law presumes both that a marriage ceremony is valid and that every person is legitimate. Marriage or filiation (parentage) may be presumed, the law in general presuming against vice and immorality.
Madan Lal v. Sudesh Kumari, 1987 SCC OnLine Del 103
In the judgement of this case court mentioned that the ordinary period of gestation is 280 days, a child born within less than 280 days of the marriage will, in the absence of evidence of non-access of the parents, be presumed under this Section to be legitimate and this presumption applies irrespective of the fact whether the mother was married or not at the time of conception. This provision of Jaw is based on the maxim Pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant (father is he whom the nupitials indicate). So, in the case in hand the initial presumption is in favour of the legitimacy of the child that he is the son of the husband but this presumption can be rebutted if the husband succeeds in showing that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when the child could have been conceived
Edited by Sree Ramya
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje