New Delhi: The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a woman seeking maintenance for her minor daughter after a DNA test established that the respondent was not the biological father, ruling that conclusive scientific evidence would prevail over the statutory presumption of legitimacy.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh rejected the woman’s plea challenging a Delhi High Court order, which had denied maintenance for the child while remanding her personal maintenance claim for fresh consideration.
The case stemmed from a dispute in which the appellant alleged that the respondent, for whom she had worked as a domestic help, had entered into a relationship with her on the promise of marriage. The two later married in March 2016, and a child was born the following month. Following marital discord, the woman sought interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
During the proceedings, the respondent denied paternity and sought a DNA test, which was permitted by the trial court. The test report concluded that he was not the biological father. Based on this finding, the trial court rejected the claim for maintenance for the child, a decision subsequently upheld by the appellate court and the Delhi High Court.
Before the apex court, the central issue concerned the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which treats a child born during a valid marriage as legitimate unless non-access between the parties is proven.
Examining the legal position, the court observed that while the presumption exists to protect children from the stigma of illegitimacy, it is not absolute when conclusive scientific evidence is available and has attained finality.
“The legislative intent is clear. Despite technological advancements by leaps and bounds, this presumption has been retained to save any child from the stigma of illegitimacy,” the Bench led by Justice Karol said.
At the same time, the court emphasised that such presumption cannot override definitive scientific proof. Citing established precedent, it observed: “When there is a conflict between a conclusive proof envisaged under law and a proof based on scientific advancement accepted by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over the former.”
The court noted that the DNA test in the present case had been conducted with the consent of both parties and had not been challenged thereafter, thereby attaining finality.
On this basis, the Supreme Court held that the Delhi High Court was justified in denying maintenance to the child and concluded that the appeal was “bereft of merit”.
However, the court expressed concern over the welfare of the child, whose parentage dispute had reached the highest court. In this regard, it directed the Delhi government’s Department of Women and Child Development to assess the child’s living conditions.
The Bench ordered that an अधिकारी be deputed to visit the appellant’s residence and evaluate the child’s education, nutrition, health, and access to basic necessities 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 court added.
While upholding the denial of maintenance for the child, the Supreme Court noted that the issue of maintenance for the appellant herself had already been remanded by the Delhi High Court to the trial court for fresh consideration. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
With IANS inputs