The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal filed by a mother seeking maintenance for her daughter, affirming that a scientifically established DNA report negating paternity prevails over the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). While upholding the denial of maintenance to the child based on the DNA findings, the Court expressed concern for the minor’s welfare and directed the Delhi Government to ensure the child’s basic needs are met.
Background of the Case
The appellant was employed as domestic help at the respondent’s residence for three years. According to the records, the respondent established a sexual relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. The parties eventually married on March 2, 2016, and a child was born on April 1, 2016.
Following a breakdown in matrimonial relations, the appellant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), seeking interim maintenance of ₹25,000 per month and other protections. In response, the respondent denied all allegations and requested a DNA test to establish the child’s paternity.
The Trial Court directed a DNA test, the report of which (dated May 8, 2017) concluded that the respondent was not the biological father. Consequently, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rejected the application for interim maintenance for the child. The High Court of Delhi later affirmed these findings, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments and Legal Issues
The primary ground of challenge was Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), which provides a “conclusive proof” of legitimacy for any child born during the continuance of a valid marriage, unless “non-access” between the parties is established.
The appellant argued that the presumption under Section 112 should protect the child from the stigma of illegitimacy. However, the High Court had observed that such protection is available only if a DNA test (which attained finality) had not been conducted.
The Court’s Analysis
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh examined the evolution of judicial opinion regarding the conflict between legal presumptions and scientific evidence.
The Court referred to Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014), noting:
“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 Bench observed that while Section 112 was enacted to save children from the “stigma of illegitimacy,” it was created at a time when modern DNA testing was not in contemplation. The Court clarified that while Section 112 provides for a presumption of conclusive proof, “where there is evidence to the contrary, the presumption is rebuttable and must yield to proof.”
The Court distinguished this case from Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2024)—where the issue was whether to order a DNA test—noting that in the present case, the DNA test had already been conducted with the appellant’s consent and its conclusion had not been disputed.
The Decision
The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court’s decision to deny maintenance to the child based on the DNA report. “The appeal is bereft of merit and, therefore, dismissed,” the Court held.
However, invoking its concern for the child’s future, the Court issued a special directive:
“We acknowledge that even if a revised amount is awarded as per law, the difficulties for the child will persist. As such, in the interest of wanting to ensure the security and well-being of the child in question, we direct the Secretary, Women and Child Development, Government of the NCT of Delhi, to depute a person of considerable experience… to determine the wellbeing of the child including in terms of education, nutrition, health.”
The Department was further instructed to step in and take remedial measures wherever the child’s situation is found lacking.
Case Details
- Case Title: Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu
- Case No.: Crl. No. 15256 of 2023
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- Date: April 21, 2026
