Father & Daughter Have 'Right To Know' Or It Will 'Trouble' Lives: Allahabad High Court Orders DNA Test In Maintenance Dispute

The Allahabad High Court recently set aside a Family Court order granting maintenance to a minor girl under Section 125 CrPC, while first ordering a DNA test to ascertain her correct parentage, a plea raised earlier by her father (revisionist), but was rejected.

A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh observed that in cases involving peculiar facts and circumstances, both the father and the daughter have every right to know the biological truth.

The Court noted that if the biological father is not known, it will continue to trouble both of them throughout their lives and they will not be able to lead their lives properly in society.

The bench passed this order on a criminal revision petition filed by one Jawahir Lal Jaiswal against a March 2025 judgment passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court in Sonbhadra.

The trial court had earlier allowed the application of the opposite party no. 2 (a minor girl), directing the revisionist to pay a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs 3K from the date of the application and Rs 6,000 from the date of the judgment until her marriage. Father's demand for a DNA test was also rejected.

Before the HC, the father-revisionist contended that his marriage to the girl's mother was solemnised in June 1994, but she left his house without any reason in February 2000. He alleged that she subsequently lived in adultery with another man and that the minor daughter was born from this illicit relationship in 2011.

It was his case that since there was no physical relationship between the revisionist and his wife (mother of opposite party no. 2) after February 2000, he could not be the biological father. 

It was lastly submitted that since there is a very serious issue as to who is the biological father of the minor girl, a DNA test of both parties is a very important factor.

On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party no.2 (minor girl) and the AGA opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court.

Perusing the trial court records, the bench noted that while the maintenance application claimed the mother stayed at her matrimonial house for four months in 2010 and delivered the child on January 1, 2011, the medical records presented to the Court painted a different picture.

Justice Singh noted that the birth certificate indicated that a child was born to the couple on November 20, 2009. Further, another medical certificate revealed that the mother delivered a second child in July 2017, officially naming her alleged partner as the father.

When questioned by the Court, the counsel for the minor girl admitted that the mother had indeed left the revisionist-father after 2011 and was living with her alleged partner, who was the father of the second child (born in 2017). However, the counsel maintained that the first child (opposite party no. 2) was actually the revisionist's daughter.

The bench was, however, not convinced and it remarked that it was unable to find out as to when and how many times the mother of the opposite party no.2 went to her husband's (revisionist) house after 2000, for how many days, she stayed with him and when she became pregnant and when she gave birth to a child and who exactly is her biological father.

Against this backdrop, the single judge found prima facie substance in the revisionist's claim and said that, to ascertain the correct fact as to who is the biological father of the opposite party no. 2, a DNA test was required. 

The Bench added that while it was not disputing the Supreme Court's judgment in R. Rajendran VS. Kamar Nisha & Others 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1086, wherein it was held that a DNA test cannot be directed as a matter of course to determine paternity, it balanced this by relying on a 2024 HC Judgment in Sachin Agarwal vs State Of U.P And Another, wherein a DNA test was ordered noting thar denying maintenance due to unresolved paternity issues would be a violation of their basic human rights.

Consequently, Justice Madan Pal Singh concluded that the trial court had passed the maintenance order on vague averments and without concrete evidence regarding the core issue of biological parentage.

Thus, setting aside the Family Court's judgment, the High Court directed the trial court to first undertake the DNA testing of the revisionist and the minor girl. The HC has directed that, following the test results, the Family Court must decide Section 125 CrPC maintenance application afresh on merits within three months.