Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu, 2026
The Court reaffirmed the importance of the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, while balancing it against scientific proof.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
28 April 2026
Judges
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The parties were married in 2016, and subsequently matrimonial disputes arose.
-
The mother filed an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking interim maintenance for herself and the child.
-
During proceedings, the respondent sought a DNA test to determine paternity, which was allowed by the Magistrate.
-
The DNA report concluded that the respondent was not the biological father of the child.
-
Based on this report, the Trial Court rejected the claim for interim maintenance of the child.
-
The decision was upheld by the appellate court and the High Court.
-
The mother then challenged the denial of maintenance before the Supreme Court.
Issues
-
Whether a presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) can override a conclusive DNA test report?
-
Whether maintenance can be granted to a child when a DNA test conclusively proves that the respondent is not the biological father?
-
Whether courts should rely on scientific evidence over statutory presumptions in cases of established paternity disputes?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court examined the scope of the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act.
-
The Court referred to prior judgments including Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023) and Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025).
-
It reiterated that courts must exercise caution before ordering DNA tests due to the social consequences involved.
-
However, it distinguished the present case on the ground that the DNA test had already been conducted and its validity was not disputed.
-
The Court noted that the DNA report had attained finality as it was not challenged by the appellant.
-
It relied on Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014), which held that scientific evidence prevails over statutory presumptions in appropriate cases.
-
The Court held that in the present circumstances, the DNA test conclusively established non-paternity.
-
Accordingly, it found no error in the denial of maintenance to the child.
-
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Held
-
A man cannot be directed to pay maintenance if a conclusive DNA test establishes that he is not the biological father of the child.
-
The presumption under Section 112 cannot prevail where scientific evidence conclusively disproves paternity.
-
The appeal challenging denial of maintenance was dismissed.
Analysis
-
The Court reaffirmed the importance of the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, while balancing it against scientific proof.
-
It maintained judicial caution against routine ordering of DNA tests, recognising their potential social and emotional consequences.
-
However, it clarified that once a DNA test is conducted and remains undisputed, its evidentiary value becomes decisive.
-
The judgment strengthens the principle that scientific evidence can override statutory presumptions in exceptional circumstances.
-
It reflects a shift toward truth-based adjudication in paternity disputes, while still respecting procedural safeguards.
-
The Court also highlighted the need to protect the welfare of the child, directing welfare assessment by authorities despite denying maintenance.