Proof Necessary to Rebut the Presumption of Legitimacy of Child Under Section 112 of the Malaysian Evidence Act 1950

Section 112 of the Malaysian Evidence Act 1950 establishes the conclusive presumption of legitimacy unless non-access is proven which presents certain complex legal issues. This article examines the adequacy of this provision in light of modern scientific developments and evolving judicial attitudes toward biological parentage. It employed doctrinal, library-based research methodology by analysing the aforementioned provision, case laws and comparative jurisprudence from the United Kingdom and other common law jurisdictions to rebut the presumption of legitimatcy. The article critically assesses medical evidence, gestational calculations, anthropological resemblance, contraceptive practices, blood grouping tests, and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profiling, identifying their relative reliability and contemporary relevance. The findings highlighted significant gaps in the Malaysian legal framework, including the absence of statutory standards for DNA testing and the lack of judicial authority to compel scientific testing in civil paternity disputes. The article concludes by proposing a principled reform of section 112 that incorporates scientifically verifiable rebuttable elements, expands the gestational period to reflect current medical knowledge, and grants clear statutory powers to the courts to order DNA or blood testing. This article aims to align Malaysian law with scientific accuracy, promote consistency in judicial decision-making, and safeguard the best interests of the child.

Presumption of Legitimacy, Paternity Dispute, DNA Evidence, Evidence Act 1950 (Malaysia)

1. Baker, K. K. (2004). Bargaining or biology: The history and future of paternity law and parental status. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 14(1), 1–69. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bukyya, J. L., et al. (2021). DNA profiling in forensic science: A review. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 28(3), 1–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Butler, J. M. (2011). Fundamentals of forensic DNA typing (2nd ed.). Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Cacioppo, J. M. (2005). Voluntary acknowledgements of paternity: Should biology play a role in determining who can be a legal father? Indiana Law Review, 38(2), 479–506. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Carson, C. C., Kirby, R., Goldstein, I., & Wyllie, M. (2008). Textbook of erectile dysfunction. CRC Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cocuzza, M., Alvarenga, C., & Pagani, R. (2013). The epidemiology and etiology of azoospermia. Clinics (São Paulo), 68(Suppl. 1), 15–26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Epstein, A. S. (2004). The parent trap: Should a man be allowed to recoup child support payments if he discovers he is not the biological father of the child? Brandeis Law Journal, 42, 655–671. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Ghanem, H. M., Salonia, A., & Martin-Morales, A. (2013). SOP: Physical examination and laboratory testing for men with erectile dysfunction. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10(1), 108–110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Helmholz, R. H. (1975). Marriage litigation in medieval England. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hinsz, V. B. (1989). Facial resemblance in engaged and married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6(2), 223–229. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Jills, A. (2008). Paternity testing: Blood types and DNA. Nature Education, 1(1), 146. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Milanich, N. B. (2019). Paternity: The elusive quest for the father. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Miller, T. A. (2000). Diagnostic evaluation of erectile dysfunction. American Family Physician, 61(1), 95–104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Ratimorszky, R. (1970). Blood tests in paternity cases. Cleveland State Law Review, 19(3), 491–502. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Richmond, S. (2018). Facial genetics: A brief overview. Frontiers in Genetics, 9, 498. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Richter, N. (2016). Facial resemblance and kinship detection by strangers. In Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Rochon, M. (1986). Sterility and infertility: Two concepts. Cahiers Québécois de Démographie, 15(1), 27–36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Schneider, W. H. (2024). Blood groups and human heredity, 1900–1950: The first genetic marker. Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Sherwood, R. J., Meindl, R. S., Robinson, H. B., & May, R. L. (2000). Fetal age: Methods of estimation and effects of pathology. American Journal of Biological Anthropology, 113(3), 305–316. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Shoshany, O., Katz, D. J., & Love, C. (2017). Much more than prescribing a pill: Assessment and treatment of erectile dysfunction by the general practitioner. Australian Family Physician, 46(9), 641–645. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Unger, L. J. (1953). Blood grouping tests for exclusion of paternity: Results in one hundred eight cases. JAMA, 152(11), 1006–1010. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1953.03690110034008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Watson, K. D. (2011). Forensic medicine in forensic society: A history. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Yu, Q., et al. (2019). The effect of perceived parent–child facial resemblance on parental physical health. Evolutionary Psychology, 17(2), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.