Ravi Kumar vs Geeta Devi & Ors. & Ors. & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 20.03.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 03.07.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 03.07.2026
+ CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 & CRL.M.A. 14726/2024
RAVI KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Babita Seth, Advocate
versus
GEETA DEVI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Neelakshi Bhadauria,
Amicus Curiae with Mr.
Sarthak Karol and Ms.
Tanishka Pawar, Advocates
CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
J U D G M E N T
Index to the Judgment
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 3
SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT .............................................. 8
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS .................................................................... 13
Issue before the Court ..................................................................................... 13
Examination of the Material on Record ........................................................ 14
Reputation Cannot Become a Shield Against Truth.................................... 24
Children Cannot Become Casualties of Adult Choices ............................... 26
Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 29
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 1 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
INTRODUCTION
1. The present case and its factual matrix raises issues that travel
beyond the questions of paternity and maintenance. It concerns the
interplay between personal autonomy and legal responsibility, and
whether a person can exercise the freedom to make personal choices
and yet disown the consequences of those very choices when they
later become inconvenient.
2. The present case concerns a situation where a man, despite
being in a valid and subsisting marriage, is alleged to have lived with
another woman in a relationship in the nature of marriage and, from
such relationship, three children were allegedly born. Public
documents and other evidence placed on record prima facie reflect
him as the father of the said children. However, he now disputes their
claim, denies paternity, opposes the conduct of a DNA test and seeks
to avoid liability towards their maintenance, his principal concern
being the possible impact on his own reputation and that of his
legally wedded wife, who holds a public office.
3. The case also raises the question whether an apprehension of
reputational harm to the adults involved can outweigh the concerns of
children who seek to know their biological parentage and whose
public records and lived experiences have, throughout, recognized a
particular person as their father. The Court is called upon to examine
whether, in such circumstances, the law should accord greater weight
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 2 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
to the desire of an adult to avoid embarrassment or to the right of
children to know their parentage, assert their identity and seek the
legal consequences that may flow from such determination.
4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking
setting aside of the order dated 13.03.2024 [hereafter ‗ impugned
order ‘], passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court (North-
West), Rohini Court, Delhi [hereafter ‗ Family Court ‘], in MT No.
56313/2016, titled ‘Geeta Devi v. Ravi Kumar’ , under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter ‗ Cr.P.C. ‘].
5. Vide impugned order, the learned Family Court was pleased to
allow an application filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 (children of
respondent no. 1) under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
and direct DNA test be conducted of the petitioner and respondent
nos. 2 to 4, for ascertaining their paternity.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
6. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as set out
by the petitioner-Ravi Kumar, are that he is a resident of Munger,
Bihar and had married Smt. Kumkum Devi on 06.02.1986 according
to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Nalanda, Bihar. Out of the said
wedlock, two children, namely PK and AK, were born, and the
petitioner claims that he has throughout resided at Munger, Bihar and
has never resided in Delhi.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 1-Geeta Devi
had instituted a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 3 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
learned Family Court on 04.08.2014, claiming that she had married
the petitioner on 16.05.1991 at Shakarpur, Delhi according to Hindu
rites and ceremonies and that out of the said wedlock, respondent
nos. 2 to 4 were born, in 1995, 1999 and 2002 respectively. In the
said petition, respondent no. 1 alleged that she and the petitioner had
lived together as husband and wife in Delhi and that the petitioner
had abandoned her and the children in the year 2005 and had
thereafter failed to maintain them. It was alleged that when the
petitioner did not return even after a month, respondent no. 1 visited
his native place and discovered that he had contracted another
marriage with one Smt. Kumkum Devi. She further alleged that she
was threatened by the petitioner‘s family and compelled to leave the
village, and has since been residing separately and caring for the
children on her own. In support of her claim, she had filed certain
photographs and documents on record. The petitioner filed his written
statement denying the entire case set up by the respondents and
asserted that he had never married respondent no. 1, had never
cohabited with her, and was already married to Smt. Kumkum Devi
since the year 1986. According to the petitioner, the photographs and
other documents relied upon by respondent no. 1 were forged and
fabricated and respondent nos. 2 to 4 were not his children. In support
of his defence, the petitioner relied upon documents pertaining to his
marriage with Smt. Kumkum Devi and documents concerning their
children and residence at Munger, Bihar.
8. It is further stated that upon learning of the proceedings under
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 4 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner's wife, Smt. Kumkum Devi,
instituted Matrimonial Case No. 51/2016 before the learned Family
Court, Munger, Bihar, seeking a declaration regarding her marital
status. The said proceedings culminated in a judgment and decree
dated 25.07.2016, whereby the Family Court, Munger, Bihar declared
Smt. Kumkum Devi to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner
and further held that no marital relationship existed between the
petitioner and respondent no. 1. The petitioner thereafter moved an
application before the learned Family Court at Delhi, relying upon
the aforesaid decree and seeking dismissal of the proceedings under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. However, vide order dated 05.02.2018, the
learned Family Court observed that the issues raised by the petitioner
could not be decided without the parties leading evidence. During the
course of the proceedings, respondent no. 1 filed her evidence by way
of affidavit and relied, inter alia , upon a photograph and her Aadhaar
Card.
9. Subsequently, respondent nos. 2 to 4 filed the application
under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking a direction for
conducting a DNA test of the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 4
for determination of their paternity. The petitioner opposed the said
application by filing a reply.
10. By way of the impugned order dated 13.03.2024, the learned
Family Court allowed the aforesaid application and directed that the
DNA test of the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 4 be conducted,
which has led to the filing of the present petition. While passing the
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 5 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
said order, the learned Family Court inter alia observed that although
the petitioner had denied his marriage with respondent no. 1 and the
paternity of respondent nos. 2 to 4, respondent no. 1 had placed on
record certain documents, including photographs depicting the
petitioner with respondent no. 1 and the children, photographs of
birthday celebrations, family photographs, voter identity cards,
school certificates of the children, and ration card, showing the
petitioner as the father of respondent nos. 2 to 4. The relevant portion
of the impugned order reads as under:
― Petitioner‘s case is that she was married to respondent
according to Hindu rites and customs on 16.05.1991 at Khatik
Samaj Mandir, H Block, Shakurpur, Delhi and out of the
wedlock three children i.e., petitioner no. 2 to 4 were born.
Respondent despite means was denying to maintain them. In
the present application, it is stated that respondent had been
denying the marriage with petitioner no. 1 and also the
paternity of petitioner no. 2 to 4. Therefore, requested that
respondent be directed to undergo DNA test in this regard.
Respondent‘s case is that he had no acquaintance with
petitioner no. 1 and he had never resided with her and therefore
there was no question of his relation with petitioners in any
manner. Respondent‘s main objection to the application is 1)
that petitioners had no prime facie case in their favour 2) the
petition had been filed in connivance with the opponents of the
respondent‘s wife who was a politician and therefore
petitioners‘ main aim was to malign and tarnish his image and
3) the application was not maintainable as it was against the
presumption u/s 112 Indian Evidence Act.
In regard to the first objection, petitioner has placed on
record her marriage photographs with respondent, also filed
photographs showing respondent celebrating birthday of his
children with relatives. She has also filed family photograph
wherein all the three children along with petitioner no. 1 and
respondent are clearly visible. In addition petitioner has also
filed the voter ID card, the school certificates of the children,
photocopy of ration card wherein respondent is shown as the
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 6 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
father of petitioners 2 to 4. In addition to this, petitioner has
also examined PW2 Smt. Vijay Laxmi the landlady of the
parties, who has stated that respondent was her husband‘s
friend and had been residing in their premises. Thereafter, he
had brought petitioner no. 1 to the premises after marriage and
in their premises petitioner no. 2 to 4 were born. People in the
entire gali were knowing this fact. Respondent on the other
hand has filed the photograph of his marriage with Kumkum
Devi and copy of the judgment passed by Ld. Principal Judge,
Family Court, Munger, Bihar declaring Kumkum Devi as
legally wedded wife of Ravi Kumar (respondent herein) and
the two children Preeti Kumari and Avinash Kumar to be born
out of the said wedlock and Geeta Devi (petitioner no. 1
herein) not being the wife of defendant no. 1. This judgment
only declares the legal status of petitioner no. 1 and respondent
as not being husband and wife but no presumption can arise
from the same that respondent had no access to the petitioner
no. 1 at any point of time relating to the period in question or
there was no possibility of petitioner nos. 2 to 4 being born out
of the relation between petitioner no. 1 and respondent. This
issue would be matter of trial but for the purpose of prime facie
case petitioner has placed enough material on record to show
that petitioner no. 2 to 4 could have been both out of the
relation with respondent. In regard to the respondent‘s 2 and 3
objections, petitioner no. 2 to 4 have an important right to
know about their paternity and since the legal status of
petitioner no. 1 as wife of respondent has been negated by the
concerned Family Court at Munger, Bihar therefore they have a
right to explore the means to establish their paternity as
claimed by them. The judgments cited by the Ld. counsel for
respondent also support petitioner‘s case and in the judgment
of Gautam Kundu Vs. State of West Bengal (Supra) has held
that the test for determining paternity cannot be allowed as
matter of routine but in appropriate cases where there is strong
prime facie case and keeping in mind the consequences of the
said test vis-a-vis the child‘s right and their status, such test can
be allowed in appropriate cases. In the present case, the
petitioner no. 2 to 4 who are now major have themselves filed
the application and have also shown strong prime facie case in
their favour by producing documentary evidence as well as oral
evidence of PW2 in this regard. Accordingly, the application is
allowed.
Let a notice be issued to the SHO PS Shakurpur to depute a
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 7 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
police personnel, not below the rank of ASI, to appear along
with the petitioners no. 2 to 4 and respondent before the
MS/HOD Forensic Medicines, BSA Hospital.
The MS/HOD Forensics Medicines, BSA Hospital is
directed to collect the requisite sample for DNA analysis of the
parties concerned, to ascertain the paternity of the petitioner no.
2 to 4, who shall appear before him. Thereafter, ASI concerned
shall get the samples sealed, collect them and deposit the same
in FSL, during the minimum time required.
The director, FSL shall either call the ASI concerned to
collect the report or shall send the report directly to this court,
latest within one month.
SHO PS Shakurpur is further directed that after collection
and deposit of the samples in FSL, the concerned ASI shall
give due intimation to this court immediately.
Put up for remaining PE on 26.04.2024.‖
SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT
11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the
impugned order on the ground that the learned Family Court has
passed the same in a mechanical manner without proper appreciation
of the facts and settled principles governing the exercise of power to
direct DNA testing. It is argued that the impugned order is contrary to
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goutam Kundu
v. State of West Bengal: (1993) 3 SCC 418 and that DNA testing
cannot be directed as a matter of course. It is further contended that
the respondents had failed to make out a fit case warranting DNA
examination and that the application under Section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act was frivolous, premature and an abuse of the process of
law. According to the petitioner, the proceedings have been initiated
in collusion with the political opponents of his wife, Smt. Kumkum
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 8 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
Devi, with the sole object of harassing the petitioner and tarnishing
the reputation of his family. The learned counsel argues that the
learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the matter was still
at the stage of evidence, respondent no. 1 was yet to complete her
cross-examination and the petitioner had not even led his evidence. It
is argued that the authenticity and veracity of the documents relied
upon by the respondents had not yet been tested and, therefore, there
was no material on record necessitating the direction for DNA testing
at such a stage. It is further submitted that there is ample material on
record to demonstrate that the petitioner had no access to respondent
no. 1 and that he neither cohabited with her nor had any relationship
with her. In this regard, it is pointed out that the petitioner had been
married to Smt. Kumkum Devi since 06.02.1986 and that a son,
Avinash Kumar, was born out of the said wedlock in the year 1994 at
Munger, Bihar. It is contended that the respondents have not placed
on record any document to show that the petitioner was residing in
Delhi or living with respondent no. 1 at any point of time. The
learned counsel also argues that no weight ought to have been
attached to the ration card, voter identity card and school certificates
relied upon by the respondents since the said documents were
brought on record after several years of the institution of the
proceedings, are yet to be proved in accordance with law and,
according to the petitioner, are forged and fabricated. It is also
contended that respondent no. 1, in her evidence, had formally
exhibited only two documents, i.e. a photograph and her Aadhaar
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 9 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
Card, and that the remaining documents had neither been exhibited
nor tested during cross-examination. It is further submitted that the
learned Family Court has failed to assign any reason for disregarding
the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2016 passed by the Family
Court, Munger, Bihar, whereby Smt. Kumkum Devi was declared to
be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and it was held that no
marital relationship existed between the petitioner and respondent no.
1. It is also argued that respondent no. 1 herself had admitted a
previous marriage but had failed to disclose the particulars of her
previous husband or to plead that the said marriage had been
dissolved or that she had no access to her previous husband at the
time of the birth of respondent nos. 2 to 4. In these circumstances, it
is contended that the learned Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction
in directing DNA testing and that the impugned order deserves to be
set aside.
12. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that in view of the petitioner's persistent denial of both his
marriage with respondent no. 1 and the paternity of respondent nos. 2
to 4, the respondents were constrained to file an application under
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking DNA testing for
scientific determination of paternity. It is argued that the said
application was filed to facilitate the discovery of truth and for an
effective adjudication of the proceedings under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C., particularly when the petitioner had categorically denied the
relationship despite documentary and oral evidence having already
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 10 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
been placed on record. The learned counsel further contends that the
learned Family Court, upon considering the pleadings and the
material on record, rightly found that a prima facie case existed
warranting scientific determination of the issue and, therefore,
correctly allowed the application and directed the conduct of DNA
testing. It is also submitted that the petitioner cannot derive any
benefit from the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2016 passed by the
learned Family Court, Munger, Bihar, since the same has been set
aside by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Miscellaneous
Appeal No. 643 of 2017 vide order dated 11.11.2024 and the matter
has been remanded for fresh adjudication. It is contended that the said
decree had been passed ex-parte and the material relied upon by
respondent no. 1, including the marriage certificate and photographs
allegedly evidencing her marriage with the petitioner, could not be
considered therein. Consequently, the said decree cannot be relied
upon by the petitioner to defeat the present proceedings. The learned
counsel for the respondents further submits that the direction for
DNA testing goes to the very root of the controversy in the
proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., since the petitioner has
consistently denied not only his marriage with respondent no. 1 but
also the paternity of respondent nos. 2 to 4. It is contended that in
such circumstances, determination of paternity is foundational to the
adjudication of the respondents‘ claim for maintenance and,
therefore, the learned Family Court has rightly exercised its
discretion in directing scientific examination. It is further argued that
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 11 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
where paternity is directly in issue, the Family Court is competent to
determine such question as incidental and necessary for deciding the
claim for maintenance. The learned counsel also argues that
respondent no. 1 has placed sufficient prima facie material on record
demonstrating cohabitation and access between the parties. In this
regard, reliance is placed upon marriage and family photographs,
birth certificates and other official documents showing the petitioner
as the father of respondent nos. 2 to 4, school records reflecting the
petitioner‘s parentage, and oral evidence, including the testimony of
the landlady, to establish that the petitioner and respondent no. 1 had
resided together. It is, therefore, contended that in view of the
petitioner's categorical denial of both marriage and paternity despite
the aforesaid material, the learned Family Court rightly considered
scientific determination of paternity to be essential for the effective
adjudication of the maintenance proceedings.
13. The arguments in the present case were concluded on
20.03.2026 and the matter was reserved for judgment.
14. On 01.07.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared
before this Court and submitted that, in the interregnum, a subsequent
development had taken place. By way of CRL.M.A. 18684/2026, she
apprised this Court that the learned Family Court, Munger, Bihar, had
passed a judgment dated 30.05.2026 in the proceedings which had
been remanded to it by the High Court of Judicature at Patna. It is
stated that the learned Family Court, Munger, has held that the
petitioner-Ravi Kumar and Smt. Kumkum Devi are legally wedded
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 12 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
spouses, having been married on 06.02.1986, and that respondent no.
1-Geeta Devi had failed to establish her alleged marriage with the
petitioner. It has further been held that, in any event, since the
marriage between the petitioner and Smt. Kumkum Devi was found
to be valid and subsisting, any alleged marriage between the
petitioner and respondent no. 1 could not have been legally valid.
15. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the
petitioner as well as the respondents, and has perused the material
available on record.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
16. In the present case, the validity of the alleged marriage
between the petitioner-Ravi Kumar and respondent no. 1-Geeta Devi
is itself a disputed question. The record reveals that the judgment and
decree dated 25.07.2016 passed by the learned Family Court,
Munger, Bihar, whereby respondent no. 1 was held not to be the wife
of the petitioner, was set aside by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. Thereafter,
the learned Family Court, Munger, by judgment dated 30.05.2026,
has once again held that the petitioner and Smt. Kumkum Devi are
legally wedded spouses and that respondent no. 1 has failed to
establish her marriage with the petitioner.
Issue before the Court
17. However, the issue before this Court is not regarding validity
of the alleged marriage between the petitioner and respondent no. 1.
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 13 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
This question also now stands adjudicated upon by the learned
Family Court, Munger, Bihar vide a judgment dated 30.05.2026
wherein it has been held that respondent no. 1 has failed to prove her
marriage with the petitioner herein. The issue before this Court is to
examine the legality of the impugned order vide which the learned
Family Court has allowed the application for conducting DNA test to
decide as to whether respondent nos. 2 to 4 are the biological children
of the petitioner herein. In other words, the issue before this Court,
irrespective of the validity of such marriage, is as to whether there
existed a relationship between the petitioner and respondent no. 1
which resulted in the birth of respondent nos. 2 to 4, who assert
themselves to be the biological children of the petitioner.
18. The determination of this issue is significant because the
petitioner has not only denied the alleged marriage with respondent
no. 1, but has also categorically denied the paternity of respondent
nos. 2 to 4, and on this ground, has refused to pay maintenance to the
respondents.
Examination of the Material on Record
19. A perusal of the material placed on record reveals that
respondent no. 1 and respondent nos. 2 to 4 have relied upon various
documents and circumstances to prima facie establish the existence
of relationship between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 and to
support their claim regarding paternity. These include:
(i) photographs allegedly depicting the marriage of the
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 14 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
petitioner and respondent no. 1;
(ii) photographs showing the petitioner celebrating the
birthdays of respondent nos. 2 to 4;
(iii) family photographs wherein the petitioner, respondent no.
1 and respondent nos. 2 to 4 are seen together;
(iv) voter identity card and the ration card, reflecting the name
of petitioner as husband of respondent no. 1
(v) school records of the children, such as 8th or 10th class
certificates, school identity cards, etc. wherein the petitioner‘s
name is reflected as the father of respondent nos. 2 to 4; and
(v) the testimony of PW-2, Smt. Vijay Laxmi, the landlady of
the parties, who has deposed before the Trial Court that the
petitioner and respondent no. 1 had resided together and that
respondent nos. 2 to 4 were born during such cohabitation.
20. At this stage, this Court is not called upon to record any final
finding regarding the genuineness or evidentiary value of the
aforesaid documents or testimony, but at the same time, the said
material cannot be ignored and does constitute prima facie material
suggesting that the petitioner and respondent no. 1 may have shared a
relationship, out of which the respondent nos. 2 to 4 were born.
21. In the present case, it is also significant to note that the
application seeking DNA examination has been moved not by
respondent no. 1 alone, but by respondent nos. 2 to 4 themselves,
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 15 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
who seek to establish their biological parentage. When children
approach a Court asserting that they have throughout been known and
recognised as the children of a particular person, and place on record
public documents and other material reflecting such parentage, the
Court cannot shut its eyes to such claim merely because the validity
of the marriage between the adults is itself under dispute. The
direction for DNA testing, in this case, aims to determine the issue of
paternity, which lies at the heart of the controversy in the present
proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance
from the petitioner, and is not intended to reopen the issue of the
validity of marriage between the petitioner and respondent no. 1.
22. Further, in the opinion of this Court, the question of invoking
the presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, does
not arise in the peculiar facts of the present case. The petitioner‘s
own case is that he had a valid and subsisting marriage with Smt.
Kumkum Devi, solemnized on 06.02.1986, and that the said marriage
continued to subsist during the period when respondent no. 1 alleges
that she was residing with him and respondent nos. 2 to 4 were born
out of such relationship. During the pendency of the present petition,
the learned Family Court, Munger, has also held that the marriage
between the petitioner and Smt. Kumkum Devi is valid. Therefore,
the controversy in the present case is not one where a party seeks to
rebut or displace the statutory presumption under Section 112 of the
Evidence Act by resorting to DNA testing. Instead, the issue concerns
the claim of respondent nos. 2 to 4 that the petitioner is their
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 16 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
biological father, though they may have been born outside a valid
marriage between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 or out of a
relationship which, according to them, was in the nature of marriage.
Seen in this light, the direction for DNA testing is not intended to
unsettle the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, but
aimed at the determination of an altogether different question –
whether respondent nos. 2 to 4 are biological children of the
petitioner and as to whether their assertion regarding paternity is
correct, and consequently, whether the petitioner could be held liable
to pay maintenance to the respondent nos. 2 to 4.
23. As regards the relevance of the DNA test to the proceedings
pending before the learned Family Court, it is pertinent to note that
the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been instituted
seeking maintenance from the petitioner. Respondent nos. 2 to 4
claim to be the children of the petitioner and, if such claim is
established, they would be entitled to seek maintenance in accordance
with law. It is also significant that Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C. does
not confine the right to maintenance only to legitimate children. The
provision expressly extends the right of maintenance even to an
illegitimate child. Therefore, the determination of the issue of
paternity has a direct and substantial bearing on the adjudication of
the proceedings pending before the learned Family Court.
24. The decision in Goutam Kundu (supra) , relied upon by the
petitioner, does not advance the case of the petitioner. The said
judgment was rendered in a different factual context and it lays down
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 17 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
that DNA testing cannot be directed as a matter of course or in a
routine manner. It does not prohibit a court from directing such
examination in an appropriate case where the issue of paternity is
directly in question and the facts and circumstances warrant recourse
to scientific evidence in the interest of justice.
25. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that the focal point in the present case is not whether the petitioner
and respondent no. 1 shared a valid marriage or a relationship outside
marriage, or whether either of them was married to another person.
What emerges from the record is a situation where, according to the
testimony of PW-2, the petitioner and respondent no. 1 were residing
together as husband and wife and three children were born during
their cohabitation in the same premises. Further, respondent no. 1, in
her testimony before the learned Family Court, has consistently
asserted that she had married the petitioner and that respondent nos. 2
to 4 were fathered by him.
26. To reiterate, the issue before this Court is not the validity of the
marital status of the parties, but whether respondent nos. 2 to 4 were
fathered by the petitioner from the relationship alleged by respondent
no. 1. The determination required to be made is neither regarding the
validity of the marriage between the parties nor regarding the
morality or desirability of the relationship alleged between them. The
question is a narrower one, i.e., whether the petitioner is the
biological father of respondent nos. 2 to 4, who claim to have been
born from such union.
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 18 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
27. In this regard , the material placed on record, including the
testimony of PW-2, the photographs depicting the petitioner with
respondent no. 1 and respondent nos. 2 to 4, including those showing
him celebrating their birthdays, and the public documents and school
records wherein the petitioner is reflected as the father of respondent
nos. 2 to 4, constitute the relevant material which prima facie calls
for an inquiry into the issue of paternity.
28. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be
relevant as well as necessary to take into consideration the recent
decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj Pradhan v.
Amar Pradhan: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 994. Insofar as the applicable
legal principles are concerned, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court observed
as under:
― 5. We now examine these competing claims. In doing so,
we must take notice of the controlling judgments:
8
5.1 Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B. ,
“26. From the above discussion it emerges—
(1) that courts in India cannot order blood test as a
matter of course;
(2) wherever applications are made for such prayers
in order to have roving inquiry, the prayer for blood
test cannot be entertained.
(3) There must be a strong prima facie case in that
the husband must establish non-access in order to
dispel the presumption arising under Section 112 of
the Evidence Act.
(4) The court must carefully examine as to what
would be the consequence of ordering the blood
test; whether it will have the effect of branding a
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 19 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste
woman.
(5) No one can be compelled to give sample of
blood for analysis.‖
9
5.2 Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy :
“16. It is borne from the decisions rendered by this
Court in Bhabani Prasad Jena [ Bhabani Prasad
Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women ,
(2010) 8 SCC 633 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 501 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1053] and Nandlal Wasudeo
Badwaik [ Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata
Nandlal Badwaik , (2014) 2 SCC 576 : (2014) 2
SCC (Civ) 145 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 65] that
depending on the facts and circumstances of the
case, it would be permissible for a court to direct
the holding of a DNA examination to determine the
veracity of the allegation(s) which constitute one of
the grounds, on which the party concerned would
either succeed or lose. There can be no dispute, that
if the direction to hold such a test can be avoided, it
should be so avoided. The reason, as already
recorded in various judgments by this Court, is that
the legitimacy of a child should not be put to peril.‖
(emphasis supplied)
5.3 Having considered extensively the previous
judgments, the following principles were enunciated in
10
Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia :
“43. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the
following principles could be culled out as to the
circumstances under which a DNA test of a minor
child may be directed to be conducted:
43.1. That a DNA test of a minor child is not to be
ordered routinely, in matrimonial disputes. Proof
by way of DNA profiling is to be directed in
matrimonial disputes involving allegations of
infidelity, only in matters where there is no other
mode of proving such assertions.
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 20 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
43.2. DNA tests of children born during the
subsistence of a valid marriage may be directed,
only when there is sufficient prima facie material to
dislodge the presumption under Section 112 of the
Evidence Act. Further, if no plea has been raised as
to non-access, in order to rebut the presumption
under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, a DNA test
may not be directed.
43.3. A court would not be justified in
mechanically directing a DNA test of a child, in a
case where the paternity of a child is not directly in
issue, but is merely collateral to the proceeding.
43.4. Merely because either of the parties have
disputed a factum of paternity, it does not mean
that the court should direct DNA test or such other
test to resolve the controversy. The parties should
be directed to lead evidence to prove or disprove
the factum of paternity and only if the court finds it
impossible to draw an inference based on such
evidence, or the controversy in issue cannot be
resolved without DNA test, it may direct DNA test
and not otherwise. In other words, only in
exceptional and deserving cases, where such a test
becomes indispensable to resolve the controversy
the court can direct such test.
43.5. While directing DNA tests as a means to
prove adultery, the court is to be mindful of the
consequences thereof on the children born out of
adultery, including inheritance-related
consequences, social stigma, etc.‖
11
5.4 Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph ,
“35. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, this
Court must undertake an exercise to ‗balance the
interests‘ of the parties involved and decide
whether there is an ‗eminent need‘ for a DNA test.
This pertains not simply to the interests of the
child, i.e. the Respondent, but also to the interests
of the Appellant.
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 21 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
36. On one hand, courts must protect the parties'
rights to privacy and dignity by evaluating whether
the social stigma from one of them being declared
‗illegitimate‘ would cause them disproportionate
harm. On the other hand, courts must assess the
child's legitimate interest in knowing his biological
father and whether there is an eminent need for a
DNA test.
…
46. When dealing with the eminent need for a DNA
test to prove paternity, this Court balances the
interests of those involved and must consider
whether it is possible to reach the truth without the
use of such a test.
47. First and foremost, the courts must, therefore,
consider the existing evidence to assess the
presumption of legitimacy. If that evidence is
insufficient to come to a finding, only then should
the court consider ordering a DNA test. Once the
insufficiency of evidence is established, the court
must consider whether ordering a DNA test is in
the best interests of the parties involved and must
ensure that it does not cause undue harm to the
parties. There are thus, two blockades to ordering a
DNA test : ( i ) insufficiency of evidence; and ( ii ) a
positive finding regarding the balance of interests.‖
(emphasis supplied)
5.5 All of the judgments referred to above were
recently followed by this bench in Nikhat Parveen v.
12
Rafique .‖
29. Further, in Chaturbhuj Pradhan (supra) , while balancing the
right of a child to know who his father was, viz. a viz. the right to
privacy of the father, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court upheld the direction
for conducting DNA test, by observing as under:
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 22 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
― 6. It is clear from the above judgments that when the
Court is confronted with the question whether or not to
order a DNA test, the only test to be satisfied is whether
the result of the DNA test is directly in issue and whether
any other evidence-on-record can substitute for the answer
that may be arrived at through this scientific process.
Also, whether it is in the best interest of the parties and/or
justice.
6.1 In the present case, the alleged relationship
between CP and the second respondent was in January
1999 and Amar was born in September 1999. CP has
consistently denied paternity and there is no other
evidence that can provide a categorical answer. It is
nobody's case that the second respondent had ever had
an intimate relationship with someone else.
6.2 Although there have been findings that state that
the second respondent has been unable to establish any
link between CP and Amar, those findings were not as
a consequence of the full-dress trial. The civil suit filed
by Amar is for this very purpose and as such, the
question of paternity is directly in issue. On this count
as well, we find in favour of the respondent.
6.3 In view of the above observation, the question of
res judicata also is closed. As far as the right of
privacy is concerned, we are balancing, in this case
CP's privacy with Amar's desire for closure on a
question that has loomed large on his life throughout.
He has seen, right from childhood, his mother assert
that CP is the father but the authorities, consistently
found otherwise. If no positive answer is ever found
out to the question, it is quite possible that Amar
would forever be denied the rights he may otherwise
be entitled to by virtue of being CP's son.
7. The balance of interests definitely lies in favour of
Amar. As such, no error can be found in the impugned
judgment. The appeal is dismissed. Let the matter be taken
up by the concerned Civil Court for fixing a date to
conduct a DNA test and proceed further in the civil suit
pending before it as per the result received subsequently.‖
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 23 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
Reputation Cannot Become a Shield Against Truth
30. It is a peculiar case brought for adjudication before this Court,
which leads it to consider a larger and more relevant question of law,
as to whose interest deserves greater constitutional protection – the
embarrassment of an adult who is the alleged biological father, or the
search for identity and future of three children. There is no doubt in
the mind of this Court that when weighed between the anxiety of an
alleged biological father to preserve his and his first wife‘s
reputation, and the right of three children to know their parentage, the
constitutional conscience of this Court will not hesitate to hold that
the former may yield where necessary; the latter, however, cannot be
sacrificed merely to avoid social discomfort.
31. Interestingly, the petitioner compels this Court to accept his
plea that conducting a DNA test will harm his reputation, while at the
same time vehemently arguing that he does not even know
respondent nos. 1 to 4. This argument, instead of compelling
acceptance, merits outright rejection. If, according to the petitioner,
he has no connection whatsoever with respondent nos. 1 to 4 and
does not know how public documents came to record him as the
father of respondent nos. 2 to 4, how photographs came into
existence depicting him celebrating their birthdays, or how evidence
has emerged suggesting that he had been residing with respondent no.
1 for a considerable period, then it is difficult to appreciate why he
should fear a DNA test. On the contrary, if his assertions are true, a
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 24 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
DNA test would conclusively vindicate his stand and protect his
reputation in society.
32. Another aspect is that the alleged apprehension of injury to
reputation is, prima facie , a consequence of circumstances reflected
from the evidence and documents placed on record. Today, when the
petitioner‘s legally wedded wife holds public office, that
circumstance appears to have compelled him to attempt to
retrospectively erase a chapter of his life and his alleged voluntary
choices. The law, however, cannot permit history to be rewritten
merely because a person's present social circumstances make him
uncomfortable about his past.
33. This Court, as a court of law, does not create facts, but it only
examines the facts and evidence placed before it. If reputational
consequences flow from an adult‘s own conscious choices, the
judicial process cannot be blamed for revealing what the individual
himself may have chosen to create. To contend that permitting a
DNA test would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and his legally
wedded wife is, in essence, to argue that the judicial process should
refrain from uncovering facts merely because the truth may cause
embarrassment.
34. On this aspect, this Court is conscious that the first wife may
herself be an innocent victim of the circumstances created by her
husband's conduct and cannot be blamed for the same. Any
consequences that may cause her suffering are indeed deeply
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 25 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
unfortunate. However, sympathy for her situation cannot become a
justification to deny justice to three other innocent children. A
perceived hardship cannot be remedied by inflicting hardship upon
innocent children who had no role in creating the situation in which
they now find themselves.
35. The rights and interests of children (respondent nos. 2 to 4)
cannot be subordinate to the considerations of social stigma or
reputational concerns of the adults involved, inasmuch as the issue of
parentage of the children also concerns their identity and has a
bearing on their legal rights, including their claim for maintenance.
Further, this Court is not dealing merely with an issue of
maintenance. It is also dealing with the issue of identity of
respondent nos. 2 to 4, which carries profound emotional,
psychological and legal significance for them. Needless to say,
financial support may sustain the body, but the knowledge of one‘s
parentage and identity sustains the individual as a person. The
dignity, sense of belonging and emotional security associated with
such identity are beyond measure. The present case, therefore, is one
where the law must approach the adjudication from the standpoint of
the innocent children and not merely through the prism of an adult
seeking to avoid embarrassment or reputational discomfort.
Children Cannot Become Casualties of Adult Choices
36. Before parting with this case, since the present case raises a
proposition which is more relevant in today‘s world, where
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 26 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
constitutional jurisprudence in many recent judgments has recognized
the autonomy of adults to choose their partners even outside their
marriage and has not interfered with such choice, holding that
choosing a partner and the manner in which a person lives is his
personal choice, this Court observes that while the right to choose
one's private life and the manner in which it is lived is recognized as
a right, in appropriate cases the Courts have to hold that such exercise
of freedom carries with it a corresponding obligation, depending on
the facts of a case brought for adjudication before a Court of law. The
Courts and the law cannot permit a citizen to invoke the right to
personal liberty while, at the same time, rejecting the corresponding
obligation of accountability.
37. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the children born
from the alleged union are entirely innocent and had no choice as to
the circumstances of their birth or the union from which they were
born. They were not aware that their parents may not have been
legally married. Their school records, identity documents and the
social recognition, as is prima facie reflected from the record, depict
the petitioner as their father. These records were not created by the
children themselves but by the adults from whose union they were
born. The decision to bring them into this world, as also to confer
upon them an identity of parentage, was that of the two adults, one of
whom now seeks to distance himself from and deny those very
decisions in order to protect his own and his legally wedded wife's
social identity and reputation. The burden of such conduct of the
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 27 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
adults cannot be permitted to fall upon the innocent children born
from such union. The children in the present case are neither the
authors of the circumstances of their birth nor of what transpired
before or after their birth between the two adults whose relationship
brought them into the world. If one of the alleged parents now seeks
to avoid the consequences of his own choices, the law cannot permit
the burden thereof to be shifted onto the children. The consequences
of such conduct must be borne by the adults themselves and not by
the innocent children.
38. Needless to state, when two adults choose to enter into a
relationship and, from such association, children are born, the choices
made by two adults cannot defeat or eclipse the rights of those
children to know their biological parentage. The rights and interests
of the children cannot be rendered subservient to the conduct of the
adults from whose relationship they were born. Moreover, if a
contrary view is to be adopted, it would lead to a situation where a
person, whether a man or a woman, could, after having lived in a
relationship outside a legally subsisting marriage or in a live-in
relationship and having brought children into the world, subsequently
deny parentage and leave the children to spend their entire lives in
uncertainty regarding their identity and lineage. Such an approach
would deprive the children of an answer to a question that goes to the
root of their identity, i.e. who their biological parents are.
39. This issue is even more significant in the current times, where
relationships outside marriage and/or live-in relationships are not
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 28 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
unknown to society. In such situations, if one of the parties were
permitted to deny parentage despite the existence of prima facie
material pointing to the contrary, and the children were denied access
to scientific means capable of establishing the truth, the consequences
would fall not upon the adults but upon the children, who had no role
in the circumstances of their birth.
40. The right of a child to know his or her biological origins and
parentage is also intrinsically connected with the child‘s identity and
dignity. Therefore, where a serious and bona fide dispute regarding
paternity arises and there exists prima facie material ordering such a
DNA test, the Court cannot altogether foreclose a scientific
examination solely because the relationship between the adults may
not constitute a valid marriage in the eyes of law.
Conclusion
41. While deciding this case, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that it is ultimately not about the private choices of adults. As
observed in the preceding paragraphs, the law in recent times has
ordinarily left such choices to the individual conscience of two adults
who choose to live with each other, even outside marriage. The law
and Courts cannot indulge in moral policing; however, they must
become concerned when those choices produce human consequences
involving innocent children, which cannot be ignored.
42. This Court also considers it necessary to observe that in recent
times, the law has increasingly recognised the autonomy of adults to
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 29 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
make personal choices concerning their relationships. It has also
become common to hear the argument that Courts have no right to
judge such choices. This Court agrees that it is not the function of
Courts to sit in moral judgment over the private lives of consenting
adults. However, while this Court will not hold individuals
responsible for the personal choices they make, it cannot permit them
to avoid responsibility for the legal and human consequences of those
choices.
43. The law respects freedom of choice, but it equally insists upon
accountability where those choices affect the rights of others,
particularly innocent children. Personal liberty and personal
responsibility are inseparable; one cannot be claimed while the other
is disowned.
44. This Court is also of the opinion that the personal liberty to
lead a life of one's choice and personal responsibility are not
opposing ideas but are, rather, inseparable companions. This Court
has also observed in several judgments authored earlier that a citizen
who chooses to exercise his right to freedom by making conscious
choices and thereby creating relationships must also accept and fulfil
the obligations that arise from such relationships. In this Court‘s
opinion, a citizen cannot consciously and voluntarily enter into a
relationship, bring three children into the world, and later reject
parenthood. The law cannot permit adults to enjoy the privileges of
choice while transferring its burdens to the childhood of those born
from such choices. If the right to personal freedom is to retain its
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 30 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
constitutional sanctity, it must be accompanied by personal
accountability.
45. To conclude, the law respects the freedom of choices through
which innocent lives are created, however, it will never permit
responsibility for those lives to be abandoned.
46. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and
the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Chaturbhuj Pradhan ( supra ), this Court is of the opinion that the
question of paternity of respondent nos. 2 to 4 is directly in issue in
the proceedings pending before the learned Family Court and cannot
be said to be merely incidental thereto. The respondents have placed
on record prima facie material indicating a relationship between the
petitioner and respondent no. 1 and reflecting the petitioner as the
father of respondent nos. 2 to 4. At this stage, when petitioner has
consistently denied paternity, there is no other evidence on record to
answer the question – whether or not respondent nos. 2 to 4 are
biological children of the petitioner. In such peculiar facts and
circumstances, the direction for DNA testing cannot be termed as a
mechanical exercise of jurisdiction.
47. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any
illegality or perversity, and the same is accordingly upheld.
48. Accordingly, the present petition, alongwith pending
application, is dismissed.
49. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 31 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
50. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JULY 03, 2026/ns
T.D./T.S.
CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 Page 32 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
19:35:45