India's Supreme Court has established a landmark precedent that men cannot be ordered to pay child maintenance when DNA testing conclusively proves they are not the biological father, even if the child was born during marriage—a ruling that balances scientific evidence against traditional legal presumptions while raising urgent questions about child welfare.
The judgment in Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique involved a couple married in 2016 who later separated amid matrimonial disputes. When the mother sought interim maintenance for herself and their child under the Domestic Violence Act, the father requested a DNA test. The results established he was not the biological parent, leading both the trial court and Delhi High Court to deny the maintenance claim.
The Supreme Court bench examined Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), which creates a statutory presumption that children born during valid marriages are legitimate unless non-access is proven. However, the judges held that once DNA testing is complete and accepted by both parties, scientific evidence prevails over statutory presumptions.
According to LiveLaw, the court noted: "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."
The ruling reflects the judiciary's careful approach to paternity testing—acknowledging its potential to destabilize families while recognizing that scientific facts, once established, cannot be ignored. Courts have consistently emphasized that DNA tests should not be ordered routinely in matrimonial disputes, but when already conducted with mutual consent, the results carry legal weight.
In India, as across the subcontinent, scale and diversity make simple narratives impossible—and fascinating. The case sits at the intersection of evolving family law, women's rights, children's welfare, and scientific advancement—all playing out in a society where arranged marriages remain common and social stigma around divorce and single parenthood persists.
Family law experts note the ruling creates complex questions about children caught in these situations. While the court freed the man from financial obligations, it simultaneously directed 's Women and Child Development Department to assess the child's welfare, including education, nutrition, health, and material needs, ordering remedial measures if deficiencies exist.
