Maintenance – Child – Paternity disproved by DNA test Paras 4, 5, 9, 10 DNA report establishing that respondent is not the biological father forms the basis to deny maintenance claim of the child. (Para 4) Where such DNA report: is conducted on court direction, is not challenged, and has attained finality, the Court cannot ignore it in favour of statutory presumption. (Para 9) Consequently, denial of maintenance to the child is upheld. (Para 10)

advocatemmmohan

(A) Evidence Act – Section 112 – Presumption of legitimacy – DNA test – Effect

Paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

• Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (and corresponding Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) provides that birth during subsistence of valid marriage is conclusive proof of legitimacy, unless non-access is shown. (Para 6)
• Legislative intent is to protect the child from stigma of illegitimacy, and such presumption has been retained despite technological advancements. (Para 7)
• Judicial evolution shows:
  • Courts lean towards upholding legitimacy and avoid branding a child illegitimate. (Para 7.1)
  • Blood/DNA tests are not to be ordered as a matter of course and require strong prima facie case. (Para 7.2)
  • However, where scientific evidence (DNA) is available, truth must prevail over presumption. (Para 7.3)
• Conflicting lines of authority:
  • One line gives primacy to presumption (Goutam Kundu).
  • Another recognises superiority of DNA evidence (Badwaik).
  • Later decisions emphasise balancing of interests and child’s rights. (Paras 8, 7.5, 7.6)
• Where DNA test has already been conducted, accepted, and attained finality, presumption under Section 112 cannot override conclusive scientific evidence. (Paras 9, 10)

---

(B) Maintenance – Child – Paternity disproved by DNA test

Paras 4, 5, 9, 10

• DNA report establishing that respondent is not the biological father forms the basis to deny maintenance claim of the child. (Para 4)

• Where such DNA report:

  • is conducted on court direction,
  • is not challenged, and
  • has attained finality,

  the Court cannot ignore it in favour of statutory presumption. (Para 9)

• Consequently, denial of maintenance to the child is upheld. (Para 10)

---

(C) DNA Test – Judicial approach – Safeguards

Paras 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 8

• DNA testing should not be ordered routinely; courts must:
  • avoid roving inquiries,
  • consider consequences such as stigma,
  • protect dignity of mother and child. (Para 7.2)
• DNA test may be permitted where it is necessary to establish truth and adjudicate core issue. (Para 7.4)
• Courts must apply a balancing test:
  • Right to privacy and dignity
  • Child’s interest in knowing biological father
  • Potential social harm and stigma (Para 7.6)
• Two conditions before ordering DNA test:
  1. Insufficiency of existing evidence
  2. Best interest balance in favour of testing (Para 7.6)

---

(D) Maintenance – Wife – Remand

Para 5

• Trial Court erred in denying maintenance to the wife.
• Matter correctly remanded for fresh consideration.

---

(E) Child Welfare – Directions by Supreme Court

Para 11

• Court expressed concern for child’s wellbeing despite legal outcome.
• Direction issued to Women and Child Development Department, Government of NCT of Delhi to:
  • assess child’s living conditions,
  • ensure education, nutrition, health,
  • provide remedial measures where necessary.

---

FINAL DISPOSITION

Paras 10–11

• Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit.
• Maintenance to child denied.
• Issue of wife’s maintenance remanded.
• Welfare directions issued for child.