The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has set aside a Family Court order directing a man to pay maintenance to a child, observing that in “peculiar facts and circumstances,” both the father and the child have a right to know the truth of their biological relationship through DNA testing.
Justice Madan Pal Singh, presiding over a Criminal Revision, directed the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra, to decide the maintenance application afresh after conducting a DNA test of the revisionist and the child (opposite party no. 2).
Background of the Case
The revisionist married the mother of opposite party no. 2 on June 23, 1994. According to the revisionist, the mother left the matrimonial home in February 2000 without any reason and began living with another individual. He alleged that the child (opposite party no. 2) was born on January 1, 2011, from this “illicit relationship.”
In 2019, the child, through her mother, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, claiming the revisionist was her biological father. The Family Court, on March 1, 2025, allowed the application and directed the revisionist to pay ₹3,000 per month from the date of filing and ₹6,000 per month from the date of the judgment until her marriage.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the revisionist argued that since the mother had lived separately since February 2000 and was in an adulterous relationship with another man, the revisionist could not be the biological father. It was submitted that a DNA test was a “very important factor” to ascertain parentage. The revisionist pointed out that the trial court had previously rejected his application for a DNA test on February 1, 2025.
Conversely, the counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. supported the Family Court’s judgment, stating it was based on concrete evidence and warranted no interference. However, during a pointed query by the High Court, the counsel for the child admitted that the mother had been living with another individual since 2011 and had a second child with him, though they maintained the revisionist was the father of the first child.
Analysis by the Court
The Court noted several “disturbing facts” regarding the timeline of events. While the mother claimed she stayed at the matrimonial house briefly in 2009 and 2010 and conceived then, the revisionist produced birth records and certificates suggesting conflicting birth dates (November 20, 2009, versus January 1, 2011) and different recorded parentage.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik Vs. Lata Nandlal Badwaik & Anr (2014), noting that while Section 112 of the Evidence Act creates a presumption of paternity, it is rebuttable. The High Court quoted:
“In our opinion, when there is a conflict between a conclusive proof envisaged under law and a proof based on scientific advancement accepted by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over the former.”
The Court also discussed the recent Apex Court judgment in R. Rajendran VS. Kamar Nisha & Others (2025) and a Coordinate Bench decision in Sachin Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. (2024), emphasizing that DNA tests should not be ordered routinely but are necessary when the truth is essential for justice.
Justice Madan Pal Singh observed:
“In the Court’s view, the present case involves peculiar facts and circumstances in which a father i.e. revisionist has every right to know whether he is biological father of opposite party no.2 or not. Similarly, a daughter i.e. opposite party no.2 also has every right to know who is her biological father because if this is not known, it will continue to trouble both of them throughout their lives…”
The Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision and set aside the impugned judgment dated March 1, 2025. The Court directed:
- A DNA test of the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 be undertaken.
- The trial court to decide the case afresh on merits, in accordance with law, via a reasoned and speaking order.
- The proceedings to be completed preferably within three months from the production of the certified copy of the order.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Jawahir Lal Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and Another
- Case No: Criminal Revision No. 1428 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Madan Pal Singh
- Date: March 17, 2026
