In Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu, the Court holds DNA evidence prevails over statutory presumption under Section 112 Evidence Act where test is undisputed
The Supreme Court has held that a man cannot be directed to pay maintenance for a child if a DNA test conclusively shows that he is not the biological father. The Court reaffirmed that scientific evidence will prevail over statutory presumption in such a case.
In Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu, Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15256 of 2023, decided on April 21, 2026, a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal challenging the denial of maintenance to a minor child.
The appellant, a domestic worker, alleged that the respondent entered into a sexual relationship with her on the promise of marriage. She said the parties later married on March 2, 2016. A child was born on April 1, 2016.
After matrimonial disputes arose, the appellant initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She sought maintenance, protection orders, and return of stridhan.
The respondent denied the allegations and sought a DNA test to determine paternity. The Trial Court allowed that request.
The DNA report dated May 8, 2017 concluded that the respondent was not the biological father of the child. Relying on that report, and also on findings regarding concealment of income, the Trial Court rejected interim maintenance.
The First Appellate Court affirmed that decision. It also noted that the appellant was no longer pressing the claim for child maintenance at that stage.
The High Court also upheld the denial of maintenance to the child. It held that the presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would not apply once a DNA test had attained finality.
However, the High Court remanded the issue of maintenance for the appellant-wife for fresh consideration.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant mainly relied on Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. That provision creates a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage unless non-access is proved.
The Court then examined the law on Section 112 and DNA evidence in detail. It referred to decisions including Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq, Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B., Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, and Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph.
The Supreme Court noted that the statutory presumption exists to protect the legitimacy of children. At the same time, it said judicial decisions now recognize the strong evidentiary value of DNA testing.
The Court observed that when parties conduct a DNA test with consent, and no one disputes the result, courts cannot ignore that scientific evidence.
The Bench distinguished earlier rulings and held that the present case was governed by Badwaik. In that case, the Court held that when legal presumption conflicts with scientifically accurate DNA evidence, the DNA result must prevail.
The Court also pointed out that this case did not concern whether a court should order a DNA test. Instead, it involved a test that had already been conducted, accepted, and allowed to attain finality
In view of these facts, the Court found no error in the High Court’s decision denying maintenance to the child. It therefore dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.
However, the Court also expressed concern for the welfare of the child. It directed the Secretary, Women and Child Development, Government of NCT of Delhi, to depute an officer to assess the child’s living conditions.
The assessment must cover the child’s education, nutrition, health, and access to basic necessities. The Court further directed the authorities to take remedial steps wherever they find deficiencies.
The pending applications stood disposed of accordingly
