Supreme Court Says No Child Maintenance If DNA Proves No Biological Link

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court said scientific evidence can override legal presumption in child maintenance disputes, while also directing authorities to protect the child’s welfare.

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a husband cannot be compelled to pay maintenance for a child if a DNA test conclusively proves he is not the biological father, even if the child was born during the marriage.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh dismissed a woman’s appeal and upheld the earlier findings of lower courts and the Delhi High Court.

Background Of The Case

The couple married in 2016, but disputes later arose between them. The woman approached the court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking interim maintenance for herself and the child.

During the proceedings, the husband sought a DNA test to establish paternity. The Magistrate permitted the request, and the test report stated that he was not the biological father of the child.

Based on that report, the trial court denied maintenance for the child. The decision was later upheld by appellate courts and the Delhi High Court.

What The Supreme Court Considered

The Court examined the legal principle under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now reflected under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, which generally presumes that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate.

However, the Bench noted that courts must balance legal presumptions with scientific evidence when reliable proof is already available.

The judges referred to earlier rulings, including:

• Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023), where caution was advised in ordering DNA tests.
• Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025), where the need to balance truth and child dignity was highlighted.
• Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014), where scientific evidence was held capable of overriding legal presumption.

Why This Case Was Different

The Supreme Court said the present matter was distinct because the DNA test had already been conducted with the woman’s consent, and the findings were never challenged.

Since the report had attained finality, the Court held that it could not be ignored.

Accordingly, it found no error in denying maintenance liability to the husband for the child.

Court Also Focused On Child Welfare

Even while rejecting the appeal, the Court directed the Women and Child Development Department of the Delhi government to assess the child’s present living conditions, including education, health, nutrition and other essential needs.

Officials were asked to take necessary steps if deficiencies are found.

Why This Verdict Matters

The ruling may influence future maintenance disputes involving contested paternity, while also underlining that the welfare of the child remains an independent concern for the state.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be treated as legal advice. Court matters depend on specific facts and official judgments.