The court said that even if the child was born during marriage. Along with this, the court rejected the appeal filed by the woman.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotishwar Singh was hearing the woman's appeal. The woman had challenged the Delhi High Court order against paying maintenance to her daughter. During this, the court discussed the relationship between the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (Section 116 in the Indian Evidence Act) and modern investigations to trace the father.
Mentioned these decisions
The court referred to the 2023 judgment of Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs Ajinkya Arun Firodia. In this the court had said that orders for DNA testing should not be given routinely. Also mentioned was Ivan Ratnam vs Milan Joseph of 2025. The special thing is that the present bench also believed that orders for DNA testing should be given only with caution.
The bench said, 'One thing that remains common in all these past judgments is that judges have always shown caution and hesitation in ordering or approving DNA tests. We completely agree with this stance. However, the court also acknowledged that circumstances change and the DNA test has already been conducted and the report has been submitted. In such a situation, the bench said that the present case is different from previous cases.
Supreme Court's argument
The bench said, 'DNA test has already been done in this case. The person who has appealed had not only given his consent for this test but also never raised any questions on the results of its report. In other words, this report is now completely final and valid.
The court also mentioned the case of Nandlal Vasudev Badwaik vs. Lata Nandlal Badwaik. He said that the situation in the present case is similar. This made it clear that if there is a conflict between scientific evidence (DNA test) and legal presumption, then science should win. On this basis, the court said that there was no mistake in the decision of not providing maintenance to the child.
also gave relief
The court rejected the woman's appeal, but instructed Women and Child Development to gather information about the child's condition. It has also been asked to take remedial measures if deficiencies are found.
Secret revealed through DNA report
The couple got married in 2016, but there were disputes between the two. Later the woman had demanded maintenance for herself and the child. During the hearing in the court, the defendant (husband) had demanded a DNA test. The magistrate allowed this and the report proved that he was not the father of the child. On the basis of this, the trial court had rejected the appeal for maintenance of the child. Later the High Court also upheld the order.
