High Court Rejects Azoospermia Afflicted Husband’s Plea for Paternity Proof in Adultery Claim

The High Court dismissed the plea of a man claiming to be afflicted with azoospermia, a form of male infertility, who sought blood samples to establish the paternity of his wife and child as evidence of adultery. The petitioner contended that the children were not his own but were born through his wife’s extramarital affair.

Conceived during cohabitation

A division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdhar and Justice Amit Bansal maintained that the child was conceived during the period when the couple cohabited as husband and wife. Consequently, the Indian Evidence Act establishes a presumption in favor of the child’s legitimacy.

The bench emphasized that the couple lived together from 2008 to 2019, creating a presumption in favor of the child’s legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. The husband’s decision to question paternity only in November 2020, during an amendment to divorce proceedings, worked against him.

Assisted Reproductive Possibilities

While the husband accused his wife of adultery and claimed he suffered from azoospermia, the bench pointed out that azoospermia has various causes, some treatable, and in some cases, live sperm can be retrieved for assisted reproductive technologies. Despite the husband’s assertions, the bench considered it possible that the child could indeed be his.

The bench asserted that the appellant/husband’s claims should not adversely impact the child, who is not a party to the proceedings. The Family Court was deemed responsible for evaluating evidence to determine if the wife engaged in extramarital relations without conducting a paternity test on the child.

Husband approached HC

The husband had approached the High Court after the family court rejected his plea to compel his wife and minor child to provide blood samples. The husband had filed a petition for divorce on January 31, 2020, on the grounds of cruelty. However, on November 3, 2020, he sought an amendment, revealing his azoospermia diagnosis and contending that the child born during the marriage did not share his paternity.