Supreme Court denies maintenance to child after DNA report showed man not as father

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld rejection of a woman's plea for maintenance to her daughter from a man after the DNA report, consented by her, showed him not to be the biological father of the 10-year-old girl child.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said despite technological advancements by leaps and bounds, a presumption that birth during marriage is conclusive proof of legitimacy, has been retained in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 to save any child from the stigma of illegitimacy.

However, in the case, the court noted the appellant woman has consented to the DNA test and has not even once disputed its conclusion, which has attained the finality.

But, to ensure the security and well-being of the child in question, the bench directed the Secretary, Women and Child Development, Government of the NCT of Delhi, to depute a person of considerable experience to ascertain and visit the residence of the appellant to determine the wellbeing of the child including in terms of education, nutrition, health, as also the availability of basic material goods required to maintain a minimum standard of living.

"It would be expected that wherever the said child’s situation is found to be lacking the Department would step in to take remedial measures,'' the bench said in its judgment on April 21, 2026.

Considering the matter, the court noted in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia Vs Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2024), it has been held that even on the basis of a DNA report the presumption about the legitimacy of the child would not be dislodged in absence of proof of non-access. This has been done in recognition of and to uphold the child’s right to privacy, the bench said.

In Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph (2025), this court somewhat softened the near absolutist position in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia case by calling for a balancing of interest-on one end the harm from the possible stamp of illegitimacy and on the other, the interest in knowing the biological father, the bench said.

After going through other precedents, the bench said, "The common thread that has run through all these judgments is a well-placed hesitation to order or to give an imprimatur to orders directing DNA test to be conducted. We entirely agree with this position.''

In the case, the appellant woman has not disputed the conclusion of report of DNA test, consented by her. The apex court thus upheld the High Court’s refusal to grant maintenance to her minor daughter from the respondent, whose paternity had been negatived by a DNA test ordered and accepted without challenge.

In the case, the appellant woman was employed as domestic help in the residence of the respondent man for a period of three years. He allegedly established sexual relations on the pretext of marriage. The parties eventually did get married on March 2, 2016. A child was born to the appellant on April 1, 2016.

However, matrimonial relations soured fairly quickly leading to the institution of a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on July 14, 2016 seeking interim maintenance to the tune of Rs 25000 per month.

The man sought a direction to conduct a DNA test to establish paternity of the child.

The Trial Court accepted his plea. The DNA test report of May 8, 2017 found that the man was not the biological father of the appellant’s child. The Trial Court and the appellate court thus rejected the application for interim maintenance.

On her appeal, the High Court held that the protection of Section 112 of the Evidence would have been available to the appellant only if the DNA test (which has attained finality), had not been conducted since the intent of the Section is to grant the presumption of legitimacy to every child.

The High Court, while also noting that the validity of the marriage inter-se the parties, was in question, refused to grant maintenance to the child. With regard to the woman, it said the Trial Court made an error in denying interim maintenance and as such, remanded the matter for consideration afresh.

After examining the position of law and facts of the matter, the bench dismissed the woman's plea, saying, ''no error could be pointed out by the appellant in the High Court’s decision denying the grant of maintenance to her daughter.''