Supreme Court rules that husband is not liable for child support if DNA test proves he is not the biological father, even if born during marriage

In an important ruling, the Supreme Court of India has said that a man cannot be forced to pay maintenance for a child if a DNA test clearly proves he is not the biological father, even if the child was born during the marriage.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed a woman’s appeal and upheld the earlier decision of the Delhi High Court.

Background of the case

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

During the case, the husband requested a DNA test to confirm whether he was the child’s father. The Magistrate allowed it, and the report clearly showed that he was not the biological parent.

Based on this, the trial court refused maintenance for the child. This decision was later supported by the appellate court and the High Court.

What the Supreme Court examined

The Court looked closely at the legal rule under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), which generally treats a child born during a valid marriage as legitimate unless it is proven that the couple had no access to each other.

The judges also referred to earlier rulings. In Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023), the Court had warned against casually ordering DNA tests and said such tests alone cannot break this legal presumption without proof of non-access.

Later, in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025), the Court said there must be a balance between protecting the child from stigma and finding the biological truth.

DNA evidence takes priority here

The Bench agreed that courts should be very careful before ordering DNA tests. However, it pointed out that this case was different because the test had already been done with the woman’s consent, and its result was never challenged.

The judges said that once such a report becomes final, it cannot be ignored. They relied on the earlier ruling in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014), which held that scientific evidence can override legal presumptions.

On this basis, the Court found no mistake in denying maintenance to the child.

Concern for the child’s welfare

Even while rejecting the appeal, the Court showed concern for the child’s condition. It directed the Women and Child Development Department of the Delhi government to send an officer to check the child’s living situation, including education, health, nutrition, and basic needs.

The official has been asked to take necessary steps if any gaps are found.