DNA Test Report Prevails Over Presumption Of Legitimacy Under Section 112 Evidence Act If Report Is Undisputed: Supreme Court

"When a report of a DNA test conducted on the direction of a court, was available on record and was in conflict with the presumption of conclusive proof of the legitimacy of the child, the DNA test report cannot be ignored," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated April 21, 2026, held that an undisputed DNA test report establishing non-paternity must prevail over the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikam Kotiswar Singh observed that while the law traditionally favors the legitimacy of a child, the "interest of justice is best served by ascertaining the truth" through the best available science when such evidence is already part of the judicial record.

The appellant, who worked as a domestic help, married the respondent in March 2016, and a child was born just a month later. Alleging domestic violence and seeking maintenance, the appellant moved the court, while the respondent sought a DNA test to dispute paternity. A DNA report subsequently confirmed that the respondent was not the biological father, leading the lower courts to deny maintenance to the child.

The primary question before the court was whether the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act can be displaced by a DNA test report that has attained finality. The court also examined the child's entitlement to maintenance and the state's responsibility toward the child's welfare in such circumstances.

Presumption Of Legitimacy Aimed At Protecting Child From Stigma

The Court began by analyzing Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act (now mirrored in Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). It noted that the legislative intent behind this provision has always been to save children from the social stigma of illegitimacy. The bench emphasized that courts traditionally incline toward upholding legitimacy unless the facts are so compulsive as to warrant a contrary finding.

Evolution Of Judicial Opinion On Paternity Tests

The bench traced the evolution of the law from Dukhtar Jahan and Goutam Kundu, noting that courts were initially hesitant to order blood tests. In those earlier rulings, it was held that blood tests should not be ordered as a matter of course and that a husband must establish "non-access" to the wife at the time of conception to dispel the legal presumption.

Scientific Truth Prevails Over Legal Presumptions

However, the Court highlighted a shift in the legal landscape with the Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik case. In that instance, the Supreme Court had ruled that Section 112 was enacted when modern scientific advancements like DNA testing were not in contemplation. The bench reiterated that when there is a conflict between a legal presumption and scientific proof accepted globally as correct, the latter must prevail.

"Where there is evidence to the contrary, the presumption is rebuttable and must yield to proof."

Distinguishing Precedents On Ordering DNA Tests

The Court carefully distinguished the present case from the recent ruling in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (2024). It observed that the Aparna Firodia case primarily addressed the "anterior question" of whether a DNA test ought to be ordered in the first place. In the present matter, the test had already been conducted with the consent of the parties and its results were never challenged by the appellant.

DNA Report Attained Finality Without Challenge

The bench noted that since the DNA report had attained finality and the appellant had not disputed its conclusions, the court could not ignore the scientific reality. The bench observed that the protection of Section 112 would have been available to the appellant only if the DNA test had not already been conducted and brought onto the record.

"The court should be furnished with the best available science and may not be left to bank upon presumptions, unless science has no answer to the facts in issue."

State Directed To Monitor Child’s Welfare

Despite dismissing the appeal for maintenance from the respondent, the Court expressed deep concern for the child's future. It acknowledged that the denial of maintenance would result in significant difficulties. Consequently, the bench issued a unique direction to the Secretary of Women and Child Development, Government of NCT of Delhi, to ensure the child's well-being.

Remedial Measures For Education And Nutrition

The Court directed the department to depute an experienced person to visit the child’s residence and assess their education, nutrition, health, and basic material needs. The bench mandated that the department must step in to take remedial measures wherever the child’s situation is found to be lacking, ensuring a minimum standard of living regardless of the paternity dispute.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to deny maintenance to the child based on the DNA report while remanding the mother’s own maintenance claim for fresh consideration. The ruling solidifies the principle that scientific evidence, once part of the record and unchallenged, overrides the legal presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Date of Decision: 21 April 2026