DNA Test Showed That Man Is Not Her Biological Father: Supreme Court Upholds Order Denying Maintenance To Child
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal filed by the mother challenging the finding regarding her daughter not being entitled to maintenance.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a mother against the order rejecting the plea to grant maintenance to her daughter. The Apex Court noted that, as per the DNA test report, the man on whom the liability was sought to be imposed was not the biological father, and the test had attained finality as the mother had consented to the same.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by a mother (appellant) challenging the finding of the Delhi High Court regarding her daughter not being entitled to maintenance to be paid by the respondent (alleged father).
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held, “It has to be noted that the present case is distinguishable from the prevailing position in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (supra) since in that case the question before the Court was whether conducting a DNA test was in the best interest of the child or not. 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.”
AOR Azam Ansari represented the Appellant, while Advocate Kumar Abhishek represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant was employed as domestic help in the residence of the respondent for a period of three years, during which the latter established a sexual relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. The parties to this lis eventually did get married in 2016. A child was born to the appellant. Matrimonial relations soured quickly, leading to the institution of a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.25000 per month, a protection order for the appellant and her minor child against the respondent, and an order to restore the custody of the stridhan articles to the appellant. In response to the said application, the respondent prayed for a direction to conduct a DNA test to establish paternity of the child in question, along with denying all allegations of domestic violence as baseless. The Trial Court accepted the prayer of the respondent and directed that a DNA test be conducted. The report recorded that the respondent was not the biological father of the appellant’s child.
On this basis, along with the fact that the appellant had apparently concealed her source of income, the Trial Court rejected the application for interim maintenance. The said order was appealed. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The High Court discussed the law relating to the presumption of paternity under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act and observed that the protection of this Section would have been available to the appellant only if the DNA test (which has attained finality), had not been conducted, since the intent of the Section is to grant the presumption of legitimacy to every child. Since the DNA report was on record, the Court refused to grant maintenance to the child. With respect to the appellant, it was held that the Trial Court made an error in denying interim maintenance, and as such, the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for consideration afresh.
Reasoning
Section 112 of the Evidence Act states that the fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten. The Bench, at the outset, mentioned, “Despite technological advancements by leaps and bounds, this presumption has been retained to save any child from the stigma of illegitimacy.”
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the DNA test had been conducted, the appellant consented to the same and had not even once disputed the conclusion thereof. It had thus attained finality. Reference was made to the judgment in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, (2014) wherein it was held that when a report of a DNA test conducted on the direction of a court, was available on record and was in conflict with the presumption of conclusive proof of the legitimacy of the child, the DNA test report could not be ignored. The Court had relied on the DNA test report and held that the appellant husband would not be liable to pay maintenance.
“In view of the above discussion and particular the position in Badwaik, we are of the considered 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”, it held.
Expressing concern about the child whose dispute of parentage had made its way to the Apex Court, the Bench acknowledged that even if a revised amount is awarded as per law, the difficulties for the child would persist. The Bench thus directed the Secretary, Women and Child Development, Government of the NCT of Delhi, to depute a person of considerable experience to determine the well-being of the child, as also the availability of basic material goods required to maintain a minimum standard of living. “It would be expected that wherever the said child’s situation is found to be lacking the Department would step in to take remedial measures”, it concluded.
Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 399)
Appearance
Petitioner: AOR Azam Ansari, Advocates T.R.B. Sivakumar, Afjal Ansari
Respondent: Advocates Kumar Abhishek, P. Venkatraju, Rishiraj Vikas, AOR Sravan Kumar Karanam