Child's Right To Know Parentage Prevails Over Alleged Father's Reputational Concerns: Delhi High Court Permits DNA Test To Determine Paternity

The Court observed that while reputational interests deserve due regard, they cannot outweigh a child's right to know their biological parentage and establish the identity necessary to assert consequential legal rights, including a claim for maintenance.

The Court was hearing a petition challenging an order of the Family Court directing DNA testing of the petitioner and three respondents in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed: "There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that when weighed between the anxiety of an alleged biological father to preserve his and his first wife's reputation, and the right of three children to know their parentage, the constitutional conscience of this Court will not hesitate to hold that the former may yield where necessary; the latter, however, cannot be sacrificed merely to avoid social discomfort."

The Bench further observed: "The law respects freedom of choice, but it equally insists upon accountability where those choices affect the rights of others, particularly innocent children. Personal liberty and personal responsibility are inseparable; one cannot be claimed while the other is disowned."

Advocate Babita Seth represented the petitioner, while Advocate Neelakshi Bhadauria appeared as Amicus Curiae, with Advocates Sarthak Karol and Tanishka Pawar.

Background

The proceedings arose from a petition for maintenance filed under Section 125 of the CrPC by the first respondent on behalf of herself and her three children. She claimed that she had married the petitioner according to Hindu rites and that the children were born from their union. According to her, the petitioner later abandoned the family and failed to maintain them.

The petitioner, however, asserted that he had been legally married to another woman since 1986, denied any relationship with the first respondent, described the documents relied upon by her as fabricated, and disputed the paternity of the children.

During the maintenance proceedings, the children sought a DNA examination under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to establish their paternity. The Family Court allowed the application after noting that photographs, voter identity cards, school records, ration cards and the testimony of the parties' former landlady prima facie indicated that the petitioner had resided with the first respondent and was recognised as the father of the three children. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Court's Observations

The Court first clarified that the issue before it was not whether the petitioner and the first respondent had entered into a valid marriage. That question had separately been adjudicated by the Family Court in Bihar. The controversy before the High Court was confined to examining whether the Family Court had rightly directed DNA testing to determine whether the petitioner was the biological father of the three children.

The Court observed that the determination of paternity was central to the maintenance proceedings because the petitioner had categorically denied not only the alleged marriage but also the paternity of the children, thereby making a scientific determination directly relevant to the dispute.

Examining the material placed before the Family Court, the Bench noted that the respondents had relied upon photographs allegedly depicting the marriage, photographs of birthday celebrations, family photographs, voter identity cards, ration cards, school records naming the petitioner as the father and the testimony of the parties' former landlady regarding their cohabitation.

While clarifying that it was not deciding the evidentiary value of those documents at this stage, the Court held that they constituted sufficient prima facie material suggesting the existence of a relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent and warranting further inquiry into the issue of paternity.

The Court observed: "When children approach a Court asserting that they have throughout been known and recognised as the children of a particular person, and place on record public documents and other material reflecting such parentage, the Court cannot shut its eyes to such a claim merely because the validity of the marriage between the adults is itself under dispute. The direction for DNA testing, in this case, aims to determine the issue of paternity, which lies at the heart of the controversy... and is not intended to reopen the issue of the validity of marriage..."

The Bench further held that the statutory presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act was not attracted to the peculiar facts of the case. According to the petitioner himself, his marriage with his legally wedded wife had remained valid and subsisting throughout the relevant period.

The controversy, therefore, was not one involving rebuttal of legitimacy arising from a valid marriage but rather whether the respondents were biologically fathered by the petitioner despite the alleged relationship existing outside that marriage. Consequently, the DNA test was intended to answer a distinct question regarding biological parentage rather than to displace any statutory presumption.

The Court also emphasised that Section 125 CrPC extends the right to maintenance not only to legitimate children but also to illegitimate children. Since the respondents claimed maintenance as children of the petitioner, the determination of paternity had a direct bearing on their statutory entitlement.

The Bench observed: "The determination of the issue of paternity has a direct and substantial bearing on the adjudication of the proceedings pending before the learned Family Court."

The Court considered the petitioner's reliance on Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) and held that the decision merely prohibits ordering DNA tests as a matter of routine. It does not prevent courts from directing scientific examination where paternity is directly in issue, and the facts warrant such a course.

The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court's recent decision in Chaturbhuj Pradhan v. Amar Pradhan (2026), which reiterated that the decisive considerations are whether paternity is directly in issue, whether other evidence can adequately answer that question, and whether the balance of interests favours directing DNA testing.

The Court thereafter examined the petitioner's principal contention that compelling him to undergo DNA testing would violate his privacy and irreparably damage his reputation, particularly because he had been married to another woman for several decades. Rejecting the submission, the Bench observed that while the right to privacy and dignity deserved protection, such rights could not be viewed in isolation where their exercise had the effect of defeating the legal rights of children asserting biological parentage.

The Court emphasised that the respondents were not seeking DNA profiling to satisfy curiosity or intrude into the petitioner's private life, but to establish a foundational fact directly bearing upon their claim for maintenance and their legal identity.

The Bench observed: "When a child approaches a Court asserting that a particular individual is his or her biological father, and seeks only an opportunity to establish that assertion through the most reliable scientific means available, the claim cannot be dismissed solely because the result may cause embarrassment or discomfort to the person denying such parentage."

Highlighting the constitutional dimension of the dispute, the Court held that the right of every child to know his or her parentage forms an integral facet of dignity and identity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court observed that social stigma attached to relationships between adults could not justify depriving children of an opportunity to establish their biological origins.

The Court further noted that advances in forensic science had significantly enhanced the accuracy and reliability of DNA profiling and that courts cannot ignore such scientific tools where they constitute the most effective means of arriving at the truth. It reiterated that while DNA testing cannot be ordered mechanically or routinely, it becomes appropriate where paternity itself lies at the core of the dispute and the existing material necessitates scientific verification.

The Bench also rejected the argument that directing DNA testing would amount to compelling the petitioner to create evidence against himself. It observed that the direction neither presumed paternity nor determined the merits of the maintenance claim; it merely enabled the Court to obtain the best available scientific evidence on an issue directly arising in the proceedings.

The Court further underscored that personal choices inevitably carry corresponding legal consequences, particularly where innocent children may be affected by them. Observing that accountability forms an inseparable component of personal liberty.

The Court clarified that the Family Court's order directing DNA examination neither adjudicated the question of marriage nor conclusively determined paternity. It merely permitted scientific examination so that the issue could be decided on the basis of the best available evidence during the maintenance proceedings.

Finding no perversity or jurisdictional error in the Family Court's approach, the High Court upheld the order directing DNA testing and dismissed the petition.

Conclusion

Holding that the Family Court had rightly exercised its discretion in directing DNA profiling, the High Court observed that the issue of paternity lay at the heart of the maintenance proceedings and could not be effectively adjudicated without scientific evidence. The Court concluded that the children's right to establish their biological parentage and consequential legal rights outweighed the alleged father's concerns regarding social reputation and, accordingly, upheld the order directing DNA testing.

Cause Title: X v. Y & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5209)

Click here to read/download Judgment