Man cannot be asked to pay maintenance for child if DNA test proves he's not biological father, rules SC
Woman alleged that the man, in whose house she worked as a domestic help, developed a relationship with her on the pretext of marriage and that they got married and had a child
A man can’t be asked to pay maintenance for a child if the DNA test proves that he is not her biological father, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Once an uncontested DNA test proves a man is not the father, he cannot be made liable for child's maintenance even if the child was born during subsistence of a valid marriage, a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh said, dismissing a woman’s petition challenging a Delhi High Court order refusing to grant maintenance for her daughter from her husband.
“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...,” the Bench said in its April 21 judgment.
Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Karol said, “…we are of the considered view that no error could be pointed out by the appellant in the High Court’s decision denying the grant of maintenance to her daughter. The appeal is bereft of merit and, therefore, dismissed.”
The woman alleged that the man, in whose house she worked as a domestic help, developed a relationship with her on the pretext of marriage and that they got married and had a child. Later, she filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking interim maintenance, protection orders and return of her belongings.
However, the man denied having fathered the child. A DNA test conducted on the orders of the trial court concluded that he was not the biological father of the child. Accordingly, the trial court turned down the claim for maintenance. An appellate court upheld the order.
Citing Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the woman contended before the Delhi High Court that a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage was presumed to be the legitimate of the man.
However, the high court rejected her claim for maintenance for the child, holding that once a DNA report conclusively established that the man was not the biological father of the child, the legal presumption Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act would not apply. It sent back the issue of the mother’s maintenance for fresh consideration by the trial court.
Noting that courts were usually circumspect in ordering DNA tests to avoid stigma for children, the top court said once a valid test had been done and its findings were not contested, they cannot be ignored.
Expressing concern about the welfare of the child, the top court directed the Secretary, Women and Child Development, Government of the NCT of Delhi, “to depute a person of considerable experience to ascertain details of the residence of the appellant and visit the same to determine the wellbeing of the child including in terms of education, nutrition, health, as also the availability of basic material goods required to maintain a minimum standard of living.”
It would be expected that wherever the child’s situation was found to be lacking the Department would step in to take remedial measures, it added.
