DNA proof of non-paternity prevails over the legal presumption of legitimacy under Section 112.

The appellant was employed as domestic help by the respondent, during which they engaged in sexual relations on the pretext of marriage.

The parties married on March 2, 2016, and a child was born on April 1, 2016.

Following matrimonial disputes, the appellant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking interim maintenance and other reliefs.

In response, the respondent sought a DNA test to establish paternity. The Trial Court ordered the test; the resulting DNA report dated May 8, 2017, established that the respondent was not the biological father.

Consequently, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rejected the child’s claim for maintenance.

The High Court of Delhi remanded the appellant’s maintenance claim for fresh consideration but upheld the denial of maintenance to the child, leading to this appeal.

1. Whether the child is entitled to maintenance from the respondent despite a DNA report establishing non-paternity, in light of the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act.

2. Whether a scientifically accurate DNA test report overrides the "conclusive proof" of legitimacy envisaged under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).

The Court primarily applied Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (and its equivalent Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), which stipulates that birth during a valid marriage is "conclusive proof" of legitimacy unless "non-access" is proven.

It relied on Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, which established that when scientific proof (DNA) conflicts with a legal presumption, the former must prevail in the interest of justice.

The Court further considered Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B. regarding the restricted ordering of blood tests.

Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia regarding the child's right to privacy.

Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph regarding the "balancing of interests" between social stigma and the quest for biological truth.

The Court observed that while Section 112 of the IEA seeks to prevent the stigma of illegitimacy, the presumption it creates is rebuttable by proof of non-access.

The Court distinguished this case from Aparna Ajinkya Firodia, noting that here, the DNA test had already been conducted with the appellant's consent and the results had attained finality without dispute.

Following the precedent in Badwaik, the Court reasoned that where the truth is scientifically known and available on record, there is no room for legal presumptions to override such facts.

The Court held that since the respondent was proven not to be the biological father through an undisputed scientific process, the legal fiction of "conclusive proof" under Section 112 must yield to the actual proof of non-paternity.

However, invoking its concern for the child's welfare, the Court directed the Secretary, Women and Child Development, Government of NCT of Delhi, to depute an officer to monitor the child's residence, education, nutrition, and health, and to take remedial measures where necessary.

All pending applications were disposed of.