Maintenance Can't Be Demanded From Man If DNA Test Shows He's Not Child's Father : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that when a DNA test conclusively establishes that a man is not the biological father of a child, he cannot be directed to pay maintenance, even though the child was born during the subsistence of marriage.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal filed by a mother challenging the denial of maintenance to her daughter, affirming the Delhi High Court's decision in the matter.

Background

The parties were married in 2016 . Subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose, and the mother filed an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking interim maintenance for herself and the child.

During the proceedings, the respondent sought a DNA test to determine paternity. The Magistrate allowed DNA test to be carried out. The test report concluded that he was not the biological father of the child. Relying on this finding, the Trial Court rejected the claim for interim maintenance for the child, and the decision was upheld in appeal and by the High Court.

Supreme Court's Findings

The Supreme Court examined the scope of the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872- presently Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam- which treats a child born during a valid marriage as legitimate unless non-access between spouses is proved.

The Court referred to various judgments which have discussed the interplay between Section 112 and modern tests to determine paternity.

In the 2023 judgment in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, the Court had called for caution against routinely ordering DNA tests. It was also held there that mere DNA test cannot rebut the conclusive presumption under Section 112 unless non-access is proved.

In the 2025 judgment in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, this absolutist view was relaxed a bit by calling for a balancing of interest-on one end the harm from the possible stamp of illegitimacy and on the other, the interest in knowing the biological father.

The present bench also agreed with the view that DNA tests must be ordered only in a cautious manner.

"The common thread that has run through all these judgments is a well-placed hesitation to order or to give an imprimatur to orders directing DNA test to be conducted. We entirely agree with this position," the bench recorded.

At the same time, the bench noted that the sitaution changes, when a DNA test has already been conducted and the report is on record. Hence, the bench opined that the present case is distinguishable from the precedents.

"In this case the DNA test has been conducted, the appellant consented to the same and has, not even once disputed the conclusion thereof. It has, in other words attained finality," the bench noted. The bench expressed that the present case is similar to the situation in the judgment in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014) 2 SCC 576, which held that the scientific evidence must prevail over the statutory presumption under Section 112.

Following this logic, the Court held that there was no error in denying maintenance to the child.

While dismissing the appeal, the Court expressed concern about the welfare of the child whose parentage dispute had reached the Supreme Court.

It directed the Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, to depute an experienced official to assess the child's living conditions, including education, nutrition, health, and basic material needs, and to take remedial measures if deficiencies are found.

Case : Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 406

Click here to read the judgment