Supreme Court paternity news: Observing that scientific reasoning will prevail over “conclusive proof under law”, the Supreme Court has ruled that a man cannot pay maintenance for a child if the paternity test fails to prove his fatherhood.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was hearing an appeal of a woman against an order denying maintenance to a child after a DNA test disproved her estranged husband’s paternity.

“In this case the DNA test has been conducted, the appellant consented to the same and has, not even once disputed the conclusion thereof. It has, in other words attained finality…. no error could be pointed out by the appellant in the High Court’s decision denying the grant of maintenance to her daughter,” the bench noted while dismissing the woman’s plea on April 21.

Affirming the high court’s ruling, the Supreme Court held that once a DNA test accepted by both parties clearly disproves paternity, courts cannot ignore such scientific evidence.

“When there is a conflict between a conclusive proof envisaged under law and a proof based on scientific advancement accepted by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over the former,” said the Supreme Court, citing its earlier verdict.

The bench relied on precedents, including those that recognised that scientific truth must prevail over legal presumptions when the two are in conflict.

The court noted that Section 112  of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was enacted at a time when modern scientific tools like DNA testing were not available, and while it continues to serve the purpose of protecting children from stigma, it cannot override conclusive scientific findings.

The respondent denied allegations of domestic violence and questioned the paternity of the child, seeking a DNA test. The trial court allowed the request.

A DNA report dated May 8, 2017, conclusively disproved paternity. Based on this finding, the trial court rejected the claim for interim maintenance for the child.

It also noted alleged concealment of income by the woman, which further weighed against her claim at that stage.

The woman challenged the trial court’s decision, but the appellate court upheld the findings. The matter then reached the Delhi High Court, which examined the legal position under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The high court observed that while the law presumes the legitimacy of a child born during marriage, such a presumption operates in the absence of conclusive evidence. Since the DNA test had already been conducted over paternity and attained finality, the presumption stood rebutted.

Accordingly, the high court refused maintenance for the child but held that denial of maintenance to the woman required reconsideration, remanding that issue back to the trial court.

The judgment traced the evolution of judicial thinking on paternity disputes, highlighting a consistent caution against ordering DNA tests due to potential social stigma and impact on the child and mother.

However, it clarified that once such a test is conducted and remains undisputed, its result cannot be disregarded.

The court distinguished earlier rulings where DNA tests were resisted to protect legitimacy, stating that the present case involved an undisputed report that had attained finality.

While denying maintenance from the respondent, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the child’s future and well-being.

It directed the department of women and child development, Government of NCT of Delhi, to intervene and assess the child’s condition. A senior officer has been tasked with visiting the child’s residence and evaluating aspects such as education, nutrition, health and basic living standards.

The apex court emphasised that if deficiencies are found, authorities must take remedial steps to ensure the child’s welfare.

The top court stressed the need to ensure “education, nutrition, health” and a minimum standard of living for the child.

Importantly, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the high court’s direction to reconsider the woman’s claim for maintenance.

That issue will now be decided afresh by the trial court in accordance with law.

By placing scientific truth above legal fiction while simultaneously directing institutional support for the child, the Supreme Court has sought to strike a careful balance, ensuring fairness to the alleged father without leaving the child vulnerable in the aftermath of a paternity dispute.

On April 7, comparing an estranged couple’s matrimonial fight to that of the “battle of the Mahabharata“, the Supreme Court has directed the husband to pay Rs 5 crore as permanent alimony to the wife and ruled that he cannot evade his legal duty to maintain her and the children only because she was highly educated or professionally qualified.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, “The marriage is dead for all practical purposes and this is a supremely fit case warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, not only to annul the marriage between the parties but also to terminate all proceedings initiated…in order to do complete justice and provide a quietus to this decade-long dispute which has crossed all limits and has assumed the status of a matrimonial battle of Mahabharata.”

The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the wife against the September 2024 order of the Bombay High Court, which refused to expedite the execution proceedings for the recovery of long-pending maintenance arrears, arising from a protracted matrimonial dispute between the parties. The court also rejected the husband’s counterclaim of Rs 20 crore from the wife.