Case Note & Summary
The appellant, was employed as domestic help in the residence of the respondent, for three years, during which the respondent established a sexual relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. The parties married on 2 March 2016, and a child was born on 1 April 2016. Matrimonial relations soured, leading the appellant to file a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 14 July 2016, seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000 per month, a protection order, and restoration of stridhan articles. The respondent denied allegations and sought a DNA test to establish paternity. The Trial Court ordered the DNA test, which on 8 May 2017 indicated that the respondent was not the biological father. Based on this and alleged concealment of income, the Trial Court rejected the interim maintenance application. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the prayer for child maintenance was not pressed. The High Court of Delhi upheld the denial of maintenance for the child, relying on the DNA test and questioning the validity of the marriage, but remanded the matter for reconsideration of the appellant's maintenance. The Supreme Court granted leave and examined the main challenge regarding Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court noted that Section 112 creates a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage, which can only be rebutted by proof of non-access, not by a DNA test alone. The Court reviewed precedents including Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq, Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B., Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, and Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, which consistently held that the presumption of legitimacy is strong and DNA tests cannot override it without proof of non-access. The Court found that the High Court erred in relying on the DNA test to deny maintenance to the child. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order regarding the child's maintenance, and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide the child's maintenance application afresh, considering the presumption under Section 112 and without being influenced by the DNA test.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Maintenance - Presumption of Legitimacy - Section 112 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The appellant mother challenged denial of maintenance for her minor child based on a DNA test showing the respondent was not the biological father. The Supreme Court held that the presumption under Section 112 is conclusive and can only be rebutted by proof of non-access, not by DNA test alone. The child is entitled to maintenance from the respondent as the legal father, and the matter was remanded for consideration of maintenance. (Paras 7-9) B) Evidence Law - DNA Test - Conclusive Proof - Section 112 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The Court clarified that a DNA test report, even if scientifically accurate, cannot override the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Section 112. The presumption remains irrebuttable unless non-access is established. The Court relied on precedents including Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia. (Paras 7.5, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be rebutted by a DNA test report alone, without proof of non-access between the parties at the time of conception.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court insofar as it denied maintenance to the child, and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide the child's maintenance application afresh, considering the presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and without being influenced by the DNA test report.
Law Points
- Presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872 is conclusive and cannot be rebutted by DNA test alone
- proof of non-access is required
- DNA test cannot be ordered as a matter of course
- child's legitimacy must be protected.
