unless that person has been cited or made a party to the proceedings or is the heir-atlaw, next-of-kin, or other real or personal representative of, or derives title under or through, a person so cited or made a party. [Emphasis added.] [13] Since the Respondent is given the right to oppose this Application, in my view, the phrase ‘verifying the facts alleged in the same’ allows the Respondent to request for proof to verify the claim that the alleged persons named in the Petitioner’s birth certificate are in fact her biological parents. Since it was the Petitioner who filed this Application, she should comply with the necessary requirements, and the request for a DNA report to establish her own claim is within reason. [14] I also took the view that the Petitioner’s reliance on the case of CAS v MPPL & Anor is misconceived. This is because in that case, the Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of a child who was in fact born within a 13 February 2023 …………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 valid marriage, but whose legitimacy was disputed on the premise that the mother of that child was not married to his biological father. This attracted the provision in section 112 of the Evidence Act which reads: Section 112 – 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 son 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. [Emphasis added.] [15] In the present case, the issue concerned the Petitioner who was born out of wedlock, and who now prayed for a declaration that she is the biological child of SIN and ICU. As such, CAS v MPPL & Anor had no bearing on the present case. [16] The Petitioner had finally relied on the public policy argument to urge the Court to allow this Appeal, in view of the claim that the Petitioner is currently cloaked by the ‘social stigma’ of being an illegitimate child, and to insist on a DNA report will further prejudice her. [17] I was unable to accept such argument, since the law is crystal clear on the procedural requirement for the process of legitimising a person and as such, it was untenable to now claim that the request by the Respondent for a DNA report is contrary to public policy. [18] There was nothing sinister or perverse on the part of the Respondent in requesting for production of a DNA report, as it is a common practice 13 February 2023 …………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 for the Respondent to do so in cases dealing with an application to legitimise, pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Legitimacy Act. [19] Hence, in the interest of determining the truth of the biological parentage of the Petitioner, the balance of justice tips in favour of the production of a DNA report. Conclusion [20] In the upshot, based on the aforesaid reasons, and after careful scrutiny of all the evidence before this Court, and submissions of both parties, this Appeal was dismissed with costs. Dated: 13 February 2023 SIGNED …………………………………………. (EVROL MARIETTE PETERS) Judge High Court, Kuala Lumpur 13 February 2023 …………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 11 Counsel: For the Applicant – Ngeow Chow Ying; Messrs Ngeow & Tan For the Respondent – Rohaiza Binti Hamzah (Senior Federal Counsel); Attorney General’s Chambers Cases referred to: ➢ CAS v MPPL & Anor [2019] 4 MLJ 243, [2022] 6 CLJ 713 ➢ Karpaya a/l Maliandy (acting through Genesan a/l Karuppiah, holder of valid power of attorney) v Kerisnan @ Krishnan a/l Malayaandy [2022] 2 MLJ 931 Legislation referred to: ➢ Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 – sections 13, 32, 33 ➢ Evidence Act 1950 – sections 35, 112 ➢ Legitimacy Act 1961– sections 3, 4, 5