A husband can easily deny paternity just by claiming the child isn't his.

Courts have held this presumption is very hard to rebut — the husband must show strong, convincing proof of 'no access' to the wife during the likely time of conception, not just suspicion or denial.

DNA tests can never be used to challenge this presumption.

While courts initially discouraged routine DNA testing to protect family privacy and children's status, later Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik) held that conclusive DNA evidence of non-paternity can override the legal presumption.

This provision decides all questions of legitimacy in every context, including succession laws.

This is an evidentiary presumption of legitimacy for factual/legal purposes in court; specific personal laws or succession statutes may have their own additional provisions (simplified).

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 116

Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy

The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate child 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.§

Why this exists

This rule descends from Section 112 of the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872, itself based on English common law's presumption of legitimacy ('pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant' — the father is he whom the marriage indicates). Before genetic testing existed, courts needed a practical, stable way to decide who was a child's legal father, since maternity was obvious but paternity was not. The 280-day period reflects the outer limit of a normal human pregnancy. The provision protects children from being branded illegitimate merely on suspicion, and promotes family stability by making the presumption very hard to rebut — only proof of 'no access' between spouses suffices, not mere suspicion of infidelity.

How courts read it

Courts have consistently held this presumption to be one of the strongest in Indian law. In Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram (2001), the Supreme Court held that the presumption of legitimacy can only be displaced by strong, preponderating evidence of non-access, not by mere balance of probabilities. In Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993), the Court cautioned against ordering DNA tests routinely to challenge legitimacy, holding they should not be used as a tool for 'roving inquiries'. However, in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014) and later in Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015), the Supreme Court held that where a DNA test result conclusively proves non-paternity, that scientific evidence can override the presumption, since truth and justice should not yield to a legal fiction. Courts under the new Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 are expected to continue applying this same reasoning, as Section 116 largely reproduces the old Section 112.

Common misconceptions

Myth: A husband can easily deny paternity just by claiming the child isn't his.
Fact: Courts have held this presumption is very hard to rebut — the husband must show strong, convincing proof of 'no access' to the wife during the likely time of conception, not just suspicion or denial.
Myth: DNA tests can never be used to challenge this presumption.
Fact: While courts initially discouraged routine DNA testing to protect family privacy and children's status, later Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik) held that conclusive DNA evidence of non-paternity can override the legal presumption.
Myth: This provision decides all questions of legitimacy in every context, including succession laws.
Fact: This is an evidentiary presumption of legitimacy for factual/legal purposes in court; specific personal laws or succession statutes may have their own additional provisions (simplified).