Shayana K vs Sreekumar T. — 321/2022

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 7Rule1. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLKN170008032022

Filing Number

717/2022

Filing Date

02-Jul-2022

Registration No

321/2022

Registration Date

02-Jul-2022

Court

Munsiff Court, Taliparamba

Judge

1-Munsiff/Jfcmii

Decision Date

30-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED

Last updated 25-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 7Rule1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shayana K

    Adv. P.M. Nandakumar.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sreekumar T.

  2. 2.Lineesh K.C

  3. 3.Adilakshmi(Minor)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary The Munsiff Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking a declaration that the second defendant is the biological father of a child born during her subsistence of marriage to the first defendant. The court held that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act creates a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for children born during valid marriage, which can only be rebutted by proving non-access between spouses through strong evidence. Since the plaintiff provided no evidence of non-access and failed to discharge her burden of proof through witness testimony or scientific evidence, the statutory presumption favoring the first defendant as the father remained undisturbed, rendering the declaration claim unjustifiable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  5. 16-Feb-2026

    Judge on leave / duty

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  6. 17-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  7. 03-Jan-2026

    For further hearing

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  8. 19-Dec-2025

    For further hearing

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  9. 04-Dec-2025

    For further hearing

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  10. 18-Nov-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  11. 09-Oct-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  12. 30-Sep-2025

    Declared Holidays

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  13. 22-Sep-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  14. 22-Aug-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  15. 18-Jul-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  16. 24-Jun-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  17. 28-Mar-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  18. 06-Mar-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  19. 19-Feb-2025

    For further hearing

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  20. 24-Jan-2025

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  21. 17-Dec-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  22. 06-Dec-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  23. 26-Nov-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  24. 12-Nov-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  25. 27-Aug-2024

    call on

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  26. 09-Aug-2024

    call on

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  27. 29-Jul-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  28. 04-Jun-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  29. 06-Apr-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  30. 07-Feb-2024

    call on

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  31. 30-Nov-2023

    call on

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  32. 21-Aug-2023

    Issue notice

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  33. 02-Aug-2023

    Issues

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  34. 04-Apr-2023

    Written Statement

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  35. 07-Dec-2022

    Written Statement

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  36. 04-Nov-2022

    Written Statement

    Munsiff/Jfcmii

  37. 16-Sep-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  38. 02-Jul-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 321/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Munsiff Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking a declaration that the second defendant is the biological father of a child born during her subsistence of marriage to the first defendant. The court held that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act creates a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for children born during valid marriage, which can only be rebutted by proving non-access between spouses through strong evidence. Since the plaintiff provided no evidence of non-access and failed to discharge her burden of proof through witness testimony or scientific evidence, the statutory presumption favoring the first defendant as the father remained undisturbed, rendering the declaration claim unjustifiable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case