Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu 2026 INSC 399

The appellant (the mother) was employed as domestic help at the respondent’s residence for three years. During this period, the respondent established sexual relations with her under the pretext of marriage. The parties eventually married on March 2, 2016, and a child was born shortly after, on April 1, 2016.

However, the relationship deteriorated rapidly, leading the appellant to file a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on July 14, 2016. She sought interim maintenance of ₹25,000 per month, protection orders for herself and the child, and the return of her stridhan. In his response, the respondent denied all allegations of domestic violence and requested a DNA test to establish the child’s paternity.

The Trial Court granted this request, and a DNA report dated May 8, 2017, concluded that the respondent was not the biological father of the child. Consequently, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rejected the application for interim maintenance for the child. The High Court of Delhi affirmed this denial of maintenance to the child but remanded the mother’s maintenance claim back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

The Legislative Intent of Section 112 IEA: The Court noted that Section 112 (and Section 116 of the BSA) provides that birth during the continuance of a valid marriage is “conclusive proof” of legitimacy unless “non-access” between the parties is shown. This rule was designed to uphold justice and protect children from the social stigma of being branded “illegitimate”.

Precedent of Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014) 2 SCC 576: The Court referred to this landmark ruling which stated that while Section 112 raises a presumption, it was enacted before modern DNA technology. The Badwaik judgment held that when a “scientific truth” (a DNA test) is known and contradicts a legal presumption, the scientific evidence must prevail because the interest of justice is best served by the truth.

The Caution in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2024) 7 SCC 773 and Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph 2025 SCC OnLine SC 175: The Court examined more recent cases that prioritized the child’s right to privacy. In Aparna Ajinkya Firodia, it was held that a DNA test cannot dislodge the presumption of legitimacy if the husband and wife were living together at the time of conception—it would only prove adultery, not the child’s “illegitimacy”. In Ivan Rathinam, the Court emphasized a “balancing of interests,” directing courts to only order DNA tests when there is an “eminent need” and existing evidence is insufficient.

Distinguishing the Present Case: The Court found the present case to be unique because the DNA test had already been conducted with the appellant’s consent and the results had attained finality. Unlike cases where a party is resisting a DNA test, here the report was already part of the record and its accuracy was undisputed. The Court reasoned that, following the Badwaik precedent, a DNA report that is already on record and in conflict with the legal presumption cannot be ignored.