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
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
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?
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.