Husband can’t be ordered to pay child maintenance if DNA test conclusively proves he is not the father, rules Supreme Court

On April 21, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that a husband can’t be required to provide maintenance if a DNA test proves he is not the father of the daughter. Therefore, the Supreme Court determined that when a DNA test clearly shows that a husband is not the biological father of a child, he cannot be compelled to pay maintenance for her, even if the child was born during their marriage.

On this ground, the Supreme Court dismissed the wife’s appeal in which she sought an order directing him to pay maintenance for her daughter.

To give a quick overview of the marriage, it took place on March 2, 2016 and on April 2, 2016, a daughter was born to her. Shortly after, conflicts arose between them to the extent that she had to file a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking interim maintenance of Rs 25,000 for herself and the child, as reported by LiveLaw.


During the proceedings of this case, he requested a DNA test to confirm paternity and the magistrate granted his request. The DNA test revealed that he is not the biological father of the child and on this ground, the trial court rejected her claim for interim maintenance, a decision that was also upheld by the Delhi High Court.

Also read: Don't do paternity test routinely: SC

The Supreme Court analysed Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) which treats a child born during a valid marriage as legitimate unless non-access between spouses is proved.

The Supreme Court also referred to various judgments which have discussed the interplay between Section 112 and modern tests to determine paternity.

In a 2023 judgment in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, the Supreme Court had called for caution against routinely ordering DNA tests. It was also held there that a mere DNA test cannot rebut the conclusive presumption under Section 112 unless non-access is proved.

In a 2025 judgment in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, this absolutist view was relaxed a bit by the Supreme Court by calling for a balancing of interest-on one end the harm from the possible stamp of illegitimacy and on the other, the interest in knowing the biological father.

The present bench of the Supreme Court also agreed with the view that DNA tests must be ordered only in a cautious manner.

The Supreme Court also said that the situation changes, when a DNA test has already been conducted and the report is on record. Hence, the court opined that the present case is distinguishable from the precedents.

Supreme Court said: "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,"

Following this logic, the Court held that there was no error in denying maintenance to the child, as reported by Livelaw.

While dismissing the appeal, the Court expressed concern about the welfare of the child whose parentage dispute had reached the Supreme Court. Thus the court directed the Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, to depute an experienced official to assess the child's living conditions, including education, nutrition, health, and basic material needs, and to take remedial measures if deficiencies are found.