MAINTENANCE FOR CHILD CANNOT BE DEMANDED FROM A MAN IF A DNA TEST SHOWS HE IS NOT THE FATHER

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 In Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu, 2026 INSC 399, decided on 21 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed a crucial principle related to whether a child born during marriage could claim maintenance when a DNA test negated biological paternity.

 

BRIEF FACTS

The Appellant Nikhat Praveen @ Khusboo Khatoon, a domestic worker, was employed by the Respondent for several years. During this period, the Respondent allegedly established a Psychical relationship with her under the promise of marriage. The parties eventually married in March 2016 and a child was born shortly thereafter in April 2016.

Following marital discord, the Appellant initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance and other reliefs. In response, the Respondent denied paternity and requested a DNA test.

The Trial Court allowed the request and the DNA report concluded that the Respondent was not the biological father of the child. Based on this the Court denied maintenance for the child. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Court and later affirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

The Appellant then approached the Supreme Court, primarily challenging the interpretation and application of Section 112 of the Evidence Act says that if a child is born during a valid marriage, the law will treat the child as legitimate. This rule was created to protect children from social stigma.

 

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court undertook an extensive review of precedent to clarify the evolving legal position on paternity and legitimacy. It examined Section 112 of evidence regarding presumption of child’s paternity. The court held that however this presumption can be challenged if it is shown that the husband and wife had no opportunity to be together at the relevant time. However, the Court also traced judicial developments, particularly:

The Apex Court observed that jurisprudence has oscillated between protecting legitimacy and discovering biological truth.

 

CONCLUSION

While reaffirming the protective intent of Section 112, it acknowledges that truth established through reliable scientific methods cannot be disregarded once it attains finality.

At the same time, even though the Court denied maintenance, the Judgment avoids a purely rigid approach, thereby the Court made sure that Secretary, Women and Child Development, Government of the NCT of Delhi to check the child’s living conditions and ensure proper care, including education and health.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s view that no error could be pointed out by the Appellant in the High Court’s decision denying the grant of maintenance to her daughter. The Appeal is bereft of merit and, therefore, dismissed While reaffirming the protective intent of Section 112, it acknowledges that truth established through reliable scientific methods cannot be disregarded once it attains finality.

 

PRIYAL BUDHIRAJA

Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

 

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “What to do when false FIR/case filed against you? How to deal with false cases” can be viewed at the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-eTdcXE4M4