A father says the child is not his and refuses to pay maintenance. Can a DNA test settle this in court? The short answer is: only sometimes. Indian courts do not order DNA tests as a routine step, and the law strongly presumes that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate. A DNA test displaces that presumption only in narrow conditions. This guide explains when a DNA report overrides the law, using the Supreme Court ruling in Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique, decided on 21 April 2026.
A DNA report defeats the legal presumption of a child's legitimacy only when every one of these conditions is met. Think of it as a flow. If any step fails, the presumption stands and the child keeps the protection of the law.
Only when all four are satisfied does scientific proof prevail over the statutory presumption. Outside these conditions, a man cannot simply demand a DNA test to avoid paying maintenance. That is the balance Indian courts try to keep.
Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 says that if a child is born during a valid marriage, or within 280 days of its end while the mother stays unmarried, that fact is conclusive proof that the child is legitimate. This presumption is now carried into Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, the new evidence law.
The only way the Act itself allows you to rebut this presumption is by proving “non-access”. That means showing the husband and wife had no opportunity for marital relations at the relevant time. The rule exists to protect the child. A child should not be branded illegitimate, nor lose support, because of an adult dispute.
Because the presumption is strong, the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned courts against ordering DNA tests lightly.
So the default position is clear. Courts protect the presumption first. A DNA test is the exception, not the starting point.
In Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu, 2026 INSC 399, decided on 21 April 2026 by Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, the Supreme Court dealt with the narrow exception.
In that case a DNA test had already been carried out on the direction of the court. The report conclusively excluded the man as the biological father of the child. Crucially, that report was not disputed by any party and had attained finality.
The Court held that where such a court-ordered DNA test is on record, is unchallenged, has become final, and conflicts with the presumption of legitimacy, the test report cannot be ignored. Following its earlier ruling in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014), the Court reasoned that when the truth is already known through accepted science, there is no room left for a presumption. Where conclusive proof under the law conflicts with proof based on scientific advancement, the scientific proof must prevail.
On these facts, the Court upheld the rejection of the child's maintenance claim against the man.
Read this ruling carefully. It does not say a DNA test is an easy escape from maintenance. It says that once a validly obtained test has cleared all the hurdles above, courts will respect the result over the legal fiction.
If you are caught in such a dispute, here is how the process usually works and what to keep in mind.
Cautions to remember:
Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak, a resident of Patna, was facing a maintenance claim for a child born during his marriage. He believed the child was not biologically his. He could not simply order a DNA test on his own. His lawyer first had to place strong material before the family court showing non-access during the relevant period. Only after the court was satisfied did it direct a test at a state forensic laboratory.
The report conclusively excluded Dr. Pathak as the biological father. No party challenged it, and it became final. Relying on the principle confirmed in Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique, the court held that this unchallenged scientific proof prevailed over the presumption of legitimacy. The maintenance claim against him on that basis did not succeed. This example is illustrative, but it shows how each condition had to be met before the result changed.
No, not on demand. A court orders a DNA test only when there is a strong prima facie case of non-access. A bare suspicion of adultery is not enough. The presumption of legitimacy protects the child first.
It means a child born during a valid marriage is presumed legitimate. This is conclusive proof unless non-access is shown. The rule now continues as Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023.
No. It overrides the presumption only when the test was validly ordered or consented to, conclusively excludes the man, is unchallenged, and has attained finality. If any of these is missing, the presumption stands.
The Court denied maintenance only on the specific facts of Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique, where a court-ordered, unchallenged and final DNA report excluded the man. It did not create a general escape route.
Yes, no one can be physically forced to give a sample. However, in some civil maintenance disputes, a court may draw an adverse inference from an unjustified refusal. Take legal advice before refusing.
The presumption of legitimacy is strong precisely to protect children. Excluding one man does not establish another father or remove every form of support. Each case turns on its own facts.
Maintenance is usually claimed before a magistrate or family court, now under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023. Paternity questions are decided within these or related civil proceedings.
You can use public records and transparency tools to gather supporting documents. The resources below explain how to file requests and draft applications for your matter.
For related RTI help, see The RTI Playbook, the AI RTI Drafter to prepare an application, and the RTI Act 2005 for the full text of the transparency law.