Latest JudgementIndian Evidence Act, 1872

Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique, 2026

The judgment strikes a balance between legal presumption and scientific truth, ultimately prioritizing conclusive DNA evidence.

Supreme Court of India·23 April 2026

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

23 April 2026

Judges

Justice Sanjay Karo & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Facts of the Case

The parties were married in 2016, and subsequently matrimonial disputes arose between them.
The wife filed an application under the Domestic Violence Act seeking interim maintenance for herself and her minor child.
During proceedings, the husband sought a DNA test to determine whether he was the biological father of the child.
The Magistrate allowed the DNA test, which conclusively established that the respondent was not the biological father.
Based on the DNA report, the Trial Court rejected the claim for maintenance for the child.
This decision was upheld in appeal and later by the Delhi High Court.
The mother challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing that the child was born during a valid marriage and thus entitled to maintenance under the presumption of legitimacy.

Whether a child born during a valid marriage is entitled to maintenance despite a DNA test disproving paternity?
Whether the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 Evidence Act can be rebutted by scientific evidence (DNA test)?
Whether courts should rely on DNA evidence over statutory presumptions in determining paternity?
Whether denial of maintenance in such cases affects the welfare and rights of the child?
Whether the courts below erred in rejecting the claim for maintenance based on DNA evidence?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
It reaffirmed that courts must exercise caution while ordering DNA tests, as they may affect the child’s legitimacy and dignity.
The Court referred to Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, emphasizing that DNA tests should not be ordered routinely.
It also considered Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, which balanced truth-seeking with protection of the child’s status.
However, the Court distinguished the present case on facts because:
- The DNA test had already been conducted
- The mother had consented to the test
- The results were not disputed and had attained finality
The Court relied on Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, holding that scientific evidence prevails over legal presumption when conclusively established.
It held that once DNA evidence clearly shows absence of paternity, the statutory presumption under Section 112 stands rebutted.
Therefore, the husband could not be directed to pay maintenance for a child not biologically his.
At the same time, the Court expressed concern for the welfare of the child.
It directed the Women and Child Development Department, Delhi to assess the child’s condition and ensure adequate care, education, and support.

DNA evidence can rebut the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 when it is conclusive and undisputed.
A man cannot be compelled to pay maintenance for a child proven not to be biologically his.
The appeal was dismissed, and denial of maintenance was upheld.
The State was directed to ensure the welfare and protection of the child.

The judgment strikes a balance between legal presumption and scientific truth, ultimately prioritizing conclusive DNA evidence.
It refines earlier jurisprudence by clarifying that while courts must be cautious in ordering DNA tests, once such evidence exists and is final, it cannot be ignored.
The ruling limits the rigid application of Section 112 (presumption of legitimacy) in light of modern scientific advancements.
It aligns with evolving legal thought that truth and accuracy in paternity determination are crucial.
At the same time, the Court ensures that the child’s welfare is not neglected, even if maintenance is denied.
The judgment reflects a shift toward evidence-based adjudication, while still acknowledging social and emotional consequences.
It also highlights the need for state intervention in cases where legal remedies do not fully protect vulnerable individuals like children.