SC tells Delhi govt to ensure well-being of child affected by parentage dispute fallout

The Supreme Court mandated Delhi government support for a girl in a paternity dispute, denying maintenance due to DNA evidence disproving paternity.

New Delhi

A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal by a mother seeking maintenance for her daughter under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. (Shutterstock)

The Supreme Court has stepped in to ensure that a girl child does not fall through the cracks of a bitter parentage dispute, directing the Delhi government to actively monitor and support her well-being, even as it upheld the denial of maintenance to the minor after a DNA test conclusively disproved paternity.

In a judgment that walks a careful line between strict legal principle and social responsibility, a bench of justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal by a mother seeking maintenance for her daughter under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, holding that once a DNA report, accepted by all parties, establishes absence of biological paternity, the law cannot compel financial liability on the alleged father.

At the same time, the court, in its judgment on Tuesday, acknowledged the human cost of such litigation, noting that the child’s “dispute of parentage had made its way up” to the apex court, and that her vulnerabilities could not be ignored merely because the legal claim had failed.

The case arose from a relationship between the woman and her employer, whom she accused of establishing sexual relations on the pretext of marriage. The two eventually married in March 2016, and a child was born the following month. However, marital discord led to proceedings for maintenance, during which the man sought a DNA test.

The test, conducted pursuant to a court order, concluded that the man was not the biological father of the child—a finding that was never disputed thereafter.

Before the Supreme Court, the central legal issue revolved around Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which creates a strong presumption of legitimacy for children born during a valid marriage. The mother argued that this presumption should entitle the child to maintenance despite the DNA result.

Rejecting this contention, the bench relied on precedent holding that where scientific evidence conclusively disproves paternity and has attained finality, it must prevail over legal presumptions. In doing so, the court aligned itself with earlier rulings that prioritise “the truth or fact” established through modern scientific methods over presumptive constructs of law.

The bench emphasised that this was not a case where the court was called upon to decide whether a DNA test should be ordered, which was an area where courts have consistently exercised restraint to avoid stigma, but one where the test had already been conducted with consent and its findings stood unchallenged.

The ruling, however, did not end with the dismissal of the appeal against the Delhi High Court’s 2023 order. In a notable humanitarian intervention, the court turned its focus squarely on the child, recognising that the legal outcome did little to address her immediate needs.

“This Court expresses concern about the child whose dispute of parentage had made its way up to us. Even though the high court has correctly remanded the matter of the appellant’s maintenance to be decided afresh by the trial court, we acknowledge that even if a revised amount is awarded as per law, the difficulties for the child will persist,” noted the bench, pointing to the practical hardships that may continue irrespective of the mother’s entitlement to maintenance.

To bridge this gap, the court directed the secretary of the women and child development department of the Delhi government to deploy an experienced officer to assess the child’s living conditions. This assessment is to cover critical aspects such as education, nutrition, health, and access to basic material necessities. The court further mandated that if any deficiencies are found, the state must “step in to take remedial measures”.