In which of the following case, it was held that “section 112 of the Evidence Act, requires the party disputing the paternity to prove non-access in order to dispel the presumption. 

‘Access’ and ‘Non-access’ mean the existence or non-existence of opportunities for sexual intercourse; it does not mean actual cohabitation. It is rebuttable presumption of law under section 112 of the Act that a child born during the lawful wedlock is legitimate, and that access occurred between the parents. This presumption can only be displaced by a strong preponderance of evidence and not by a mere balance of probabilities”.