22 April 2026 Legal Updates

DNA Evidence Prevails Over Presumption of Legitimacy: No Maintenance If Man Not Biological Father – Supreme Court

Case Details

(a) Case Title:

• Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• April 21, 2026

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Facts of the Case

• The appellant (mother) sought maintenance for herself and her child under the Domestic Violence Act. The respondent denied paternity and requested a DNA test. The court permitted the test, which conclusively showed that the respondent was not the biological father of the child.
• Based on this, the Trial Court denied maintenance for the child. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Court and the Delhi High Court. The mother then approached the Supreme Court challenging this denial, relying on the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Issues Raised

• Whether a child born during marriage is automatically entitled to maintenance despite contrary DNA evidence?
• Whether DNA test results can override the presumption under Section 112 Evidence Act?
• Whether a man can be compelled to pay maintenance when he is not the biological father?

Contentions of the Petitioner (Mother)

• Child was born during subsistence of marriage → presumption of legitimacy applies.
• Section 112 Evidence Act gives conclusive proof of legitimacy.
• Maintenance should be granted regardless of DNA findings.

Contentions of the Respondent (Man)

• DNA test conclusively proves he is not the biological father.
• No legal obligation to maintain a child who is not his.
• Scientific evidence should prevail over legal presumption.

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

1. Presumption Under Section 112 (Now Section 116 BSA)

• Law presumes child born during marriage is legitimate.
• Purpose: protect child from stigma of illegitimacy.

2. Evolution of Law on DNA vs Presumption

Court traced judicial evolution:

• Goutam Kundu case → DNA tests not routine
• Nandlal Badwaik case → DNA evidence prevails over presumption
• Aparna Firodia case → strong protection of legitimacy
• Ivan Rathinam case → balancing approach

3. Key Distinction in Present Case

Unlike earlier cases:

• DNA test was already conducted
• Parties consented
• Result undisputed and final

Therefore, no need to rely on presumption.

4. Scientific Truth vs Legal Presumption

Court held:

• When scientific evidence clearly proves truth,
• Legal presumption must give way

5. Application of Precedent

Relied on Nandlal Badwaik (2014):

• DNA test = most accurate evidence
• Overrides presumption if conflict exists

6. Welfare Concern for Child

• Court acknowledged: Child’s hardship and vulnerability
• Directed: Government authorities to assess child’s welfare and Ensure education, nutrition, and living conditions

Final Verdict

• Appeal dismissed
• Maintenance to child denied
• DNA evidence accepted over legal presumption
• Directions issued for state welfare intervention for child

Legal Principles Established

1. Section 112 Evidence Act (Now Section 116 BSA)

• Provides conclusive presumption of legitimacy
• Applies when: Child born during valid marriage
• Exception: Can be rebutted by:
  - Proof of non-access
  - OR strong scientific evidence (DNA)

2. DNA Evidence vs Legal Presumption

• Earlier: Presumption dominant
• Now (modern view): DNA evidence prevails when conclusive

3. Maintenance Law Principle

• Maintenance obligation arises from: Legal or biological relationship
• If no paternity → no liability

4. Caution in Ordering DNA Tests

Courts should:

• Avoid routine orders
• Consider: Privacy, Child’s dignity, Social stigma

5. Balancing Test (Important for CLAT)

Courts balance:

• Child’s legitimacy & dignity vs
• Right to truth & biological identity

6. Scientific Evidence in Law

• Courts increasingly accept: Scientific certainty over legal fiction

7. Welfare State Responsibility

Even if legal claim fails: State must ensure:

• Child welfare
• Basic rights (education, health)