He said the baby wasn't his after 2 days of marriage. The court said: prove it—but not with blood.

He married her. Two days later, she was pregnant. He said: That's not my child. Give me a blood test to prove it. The court said no.

The marriage lasted two days. The pregnancy lasted nine months. The legal fight lasted years. A man who denied fathering a child conceived just 48 hours into his marriage demanded a blood test to prove his case. The courts refused—not because the test was unreliable, but because the law protects something deeper than a man's desire for biological proof, as established under the conclusive presumption of legitimacy in Section 112 of the Evidence Act.

The question that hung over the case was simple: Can a court force a person to give blood to prove paternity, even when the truth seems obvious?

When the marriage ended before it began

A wedding. A man and a woman married. Two days later, the wife became pregnant. The husband, identified in court records as 'X', did not celebrate. He accused his wife—'Y'—of having an adulterous relationship before the marriage. He claimed the child could not be his.

The wife filed a petition for maintenance (financial support from a husband for his wife and child). The husband fought back. If the child was not his, he argued, why should he pay a single rupee? To prove this, he asked the court to order a blood group test—a method that can exclude a man as the biological father.

The Magistrate's Court refused. The courtroom fell into a thick silence as the husband's lawyer made his demand, the judge's eyes fixed on the handwritten maintenance petition. The wife sat motionless, her hands folded in her lap, the weight of the accusation pressing down on her. The court gave two grounds for its refusal: first, that there were other methods under the Evidence Act to disprove paternity; and second, that it was settled law that a medical test cannot be conclusive of paternity. So did the Sessions Court on appeal. The husband then approached the High Court in revision, arguing that the lower courts had denied him the chance to prove his innocence.

Why the lower courts said no

The courts that first heard the case gave two reasons. First, the Evidence Act already provided other methods to disprove paternity—methods that did not require forcing someone to give blood. Second, a blood test can only exclude a man as the father; it cannot prove that a specific man is the father.

But the deeper reason lay in a single provision of the Evidence Act: Section 112. This section creates a legal presumption (a rule that a court must accept a fact as true unless proven otherwise) that a child born during a valid marriage is the legitimate child of the husband. This presumption is "conclusive proof"—meaning it can only be overturned by one thing: proof that the husband had no access to the wife at the time the child could have been conceived.

The High Court held that Section 112 was a "stumbling block" for the husband. As long as the marriage existed and the husband had access to his wife, the law presumed the child was his—blood test or no blood test. The judge adjusted his glasses as he read the provision aloud, the weight of the statute settling over the courtroom. A clerk shuffled papers in the corner, the sound barely audible above the stillness. The High Court, in dismissing the revision, made clear that birth during the continuance of a valid marriage is conclusive proof of legitimacy, rebuttable only by proof of non-access.

What the Supreme Court was asked

The husband appealed to the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition. Science had advanced, he argued. Blood grouping tests were reliable. The court should use every tool available to find the truth. If the test showed he was not the father, why should he pay maintenance for another man's child?

The wife's position was different. She had handwritten her maintenance petition, each line a plea for support. No person can be forced to give blood against their will, she argued. The law protects bodily integrity. A blood test was an invasion of the body. And if she refused, the husband wanted the court to draw an adverse inference (a negative conclusion) against her. That, she said, would be unjust.

The Supreme Court had to balance two competing values: the court's duty to discover the truth, and every person's right not to have their body used as evidence against their will. The Court observed that while a Judge of the High Court has the power to order a blood test whenever it is in the best interest of the child, the objective of the Court is always to find out the truth, and scientific advances should not be hesitated to be used when the occasion requires.

Why the blood test was refused

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. The husband's application for a blood test was dismissed. The court's reasoning had three layers.

First, the court acknowledged that science is useful. Blood grouping tests can be valuable circumstantial evidence (indirect evidence that points toward a conclusion) in disputed paternity cases, potentially excluding a certain individual as the father of the child. The court said judges should not hesitate to use scientific advances when the occasion requires. The bench leaned forward as the arguments unfolded, the justices exchanging glances that spoke of careful deliberation.

Second, the court drew a firm line: "No person can be compelled to give a sample of blood for analysis against her will." This is not a minor procedural point. If a person refuses to give blood, the court cannot draw an adverse inference against them for that refusal. The ability of a court to draw negative conclusions from a party's conduct is not unlimited—it is constrained by whether the law allows the evidence to be compelled in the first place. The clerk handed up the file, its pages worn from handling, and the bench fell silent as the judgment was read.

Third, the court looked at the husband's motive. The purpose of his application, the court concluded, was not to establish the truth. It was to avoid payment of maintenance. The husband had made no ground whatever to justify recourse to the blood test. He had not even attempted to prove non-access (the only ground under Section 112 that could rebut the presumption of legitimacy). He simply wanted the test to do the work that his own evidence should have done.

When the truth is not enough

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The husband would have to pay maintenance. The child would remain legitimate in the eyes of the law. The Court stated that the Special Leave Petition would stand dismissed.

The impact of this case reaches far beyond one family. The court established a principle that still governs paternity disputes today: even when relevant evidence exists—like a blood sample that could conclusively exclude a man as the father—if the law does not allow that evidence to be compelled, the court cannot punish a person for refusing to provide it.

This means that a husband who denies paternity cannot simply demand a blood test and expect the court to order it. He must first make a case. He must show that the presumption under Section 112 can be rebutted. And even then, the court cannot force the wife to give blood. The refusal to give blood is not evidence of guilt. The impact of this case is critical: even when relevant evidence exists, if a party cannot be compelled by law to provide it, no adverse inference can be drawn against them for refusal. This highlights that the ability of a court to draw an adverse inference is not unlimited but is constrained by the compulsion or legality of evidence production.

The case of Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal remains a landmark. It reminds every court that the pursuit of truth must respect the boundaries set by law. A blood test may reveal biological fact, but the law guards bodily integrity as a higher principle. A person cannot be turned into a specimen, a source of evidence, against their will. The courtroom door closed behind the last visitor, and the judgment stood—a quiet but firm boundary on the power of science in the service of law.

THE PLAY: In paternity disputes, a blood test can only be ordered if the party seeking it first provides independent evidence to rebut the presumption of legitimacy—and even then, no one can be forced to give blood, and no adverse inference can be drawn from their refusal.

The child was born. The husband paid. The blood stayed where it belonged.