No Forced Fatherhood in Law: Supreme Court Rules Maintenance Cannot Be Ordered After DNA Test Disproves Paternity

In a significant ruling at the intersection of family law, child maintenance, and scientific evidence, the Supreme Court of India has held that a man cannot be compelled to pay maintenance for a child when a DNA test conclusively establishes that he is not the biological father. The judgment clarifies that while maintenance law is welfare-oriented, legal liability cannot be imposed contrary to definitive scientific proof. 

The decision was delivered by a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh in Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu, where the Court dismissed an appeal filed by the mother seeking maintenance for her daughter after lower courts and the Delhi High Court had declined the claim. 

The dispute arose in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, where interim maintenance had been sought for the wife and child. During the case, the respondent sought a DNA test to determine paternity. The test report concluded that he was not the biological father. Importantly, the mother had consented to the test and did not challenge its findings, allowing the report to attain finality. 

The Supreme Court examined the relationship between the traditional legal presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) and modern DNA evidence. Section 112 presumes that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate unless non-access between spouses is proved. However, the Court held that where a DNA report has already been validly obtained and remains undisputed, scientific evidence must prevail over legal fiction.

The Bench referred to prior decisions such as Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014), where the Court held that conclusive scientific evidence can override statutory presumptions. At the same time, it reiterated caution that DNA testing should not be ordered routinely, given privacy concerns and the risk of stigma to children.

Despite denying maintenance from the respondent, the Court showed concern for the child’s welfare and directed the Women and Child Development Department, GNCTD to assess the child’s education, nutrition, healthcare, and living conditions, and take remedial measures if required. 

The ruling has wide implications. It balances child welfare, fairness to alleged fathers, privacy rights, and evidentiary accuracy. For family courts, the message is clear: maintenance law protects dependents, but paternity liability cannot survive where biology has been conclusively disproved by accepted scientific evidence.