A DNA test can settle biology. But it does not always settle law. And sometimes, it forces courts to balance science, legal presumptions, and the welfare of a child.
That has now been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of India, and the ruling carries significant implications for matrimonial and maintenance litigation.
In this case, the woman had initially alleged that the respondent established a relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. The parties later married, and soon thereafter, a child was born. Following matrimonial discord, she initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, seeking interim maintenance for herself and the child, along with other reliefs.
The respondent disputed paternity and sought a DNA test.
The Trial Court with the consent of the women allowed the request. The DNA report conclusively established that he was not the biological father of the child. Relying on this scientific evidence, the Trial Court denied interim maintenance to the child. The appellate court affirmed that finding, and the matter eventually reached the Supreme Court.
The principal argument before the Court was based on Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which creates a presumption of legitimacy for a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage.
Ordinarily, this presumption is one of the strongest known to law.
But the Court drew an important distinction.
Section 112 operates primarily in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary. Where a court-directed DNA test has already been conducted, the parties have consented to it, and the findings have attained finality, the legal presumption cannot be used to ignore scientific truth.
That is precisely what happened here.
The Supreme Court relied on the principle laid down in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik, holding that when a DNA report directly conflicts with a statutory presumption, the truth established by science must prevail. Once paternity stood conclusively disproved, the respondent could not be compelled to pay maintenance for a child who was not biologically his.
At the same time, the Court was careful to balance legal principle with human concern.
It reiterated that courts should exercise great caution before directing DNA tests, given the profound implications such orders may have on the legitimacy, dignity, privacy, and emotional well-being of the child and the mother. DNA testing is not to be ordered routinely. It remains an exceptional remedy, to be invoked only where the circumstances genuinely justify it.
Importantly, while the child’s claim for maintenance failed, the Supreme Court did not close the door on the wife’s independent claim. It upheld the remand of her maintenance claim for fresh consideration by the Trial Court.
This is what makes the judgment particularly significant.
It reinforces that maintenance rights of a spouse and maintenance rights claimed on behalf of a child are legally distinct. A finding on one does not automatically determine the other.
Because while law respects presumptions, it cannot remain blind to proof.
Case details:
Supreme Court
Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon V. Rafique @ Shillu
2026 INSC 399