Can a DNA Test be Directed to Determine a Child's Claim for Maintenance? Delhi High Court answers in Ravi Kumar v. Geeta Devi & Ors. decided on July 03 2026

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Can a court direct a DNA test where biological paternity is disputed in proceedings of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? This question came before the Delhi High Court in Ravi Kumar v. Geeta Devi & Ors., where Ravi Kumar challenged an order of the Family Court directing a DNA test, passed after he denied both his alleged relationship with Geeta Devi and the paternity of her children. While dismissing the challenge, the Court reiterated that DNA testing cannot be directed as a matter of routine. However, where paternity is directly in issue and the facts justify scientific examination, such a direction may be necessary for determining the rights arising in the proceedings.

Ravi Kumar, the petitioner asserted that he had been married to Kumkum Devi since 1986 and had never married or lived with Geeta Devi. He denied residing in Delhi, denied alleged marriage of 1991, denied any relationship with Geeta Devi, and claimed that the photographs and documents relied upon by the mother and children were forged and fabricated. Geeta Devi, on the other hand, asserted that she had married Ravi in 1991 and that the children were born from that relationship. She alleged that Ravi had abandoned the family in 2005, after which she discovered that he was already married to Kumkum Devi. Separate matrimonial proceedings before the Family Court at Munger culminated in a finding that Geeta Devi had failed to establish a valid marriage with Ravi. The Delhi High Court, however, clarified that the issue before it was not the validity of the alleged marriage. Rather, it was whether the Family Court was justified in directing a DNA test to determine the paternity of the childrenin the pending maintenance proceedings.

Geeta and her children relied upon photographs of the alleged marriage, family photographs, photographs showing Ravi celebrating the children's birthdays, voter identity and ration card records reflecting Ravi as Geeta's husband, school records naming him as the father of the children, and the testimony of the landlady, who stated that the Ravi and Geeta had resided together and that the children were born during that cohabitation. The Court clarified that it was not recording any finding regarding the genuineness or evidentiary value of these documents. Those questions would be determined during trial. However, the Court found that this material prima facie suggested that the Ravi and Geeta may have shared a relationship out of which the children were born, thereby justifying scientific determination of the issue of paternity.

Ravi, the alleged father, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, which cautions that DNA tests cannot be directed as a matter of routine. The High Court agreed with that principle but held that it does not prohibit DNA testing where paternity is directly in issue and the facts of the case justify scientific examination. The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Chaturbhuj Pradhan v. Amar Pradhan, which reiterates that courts must consider whether the result of a DNA test is directly in issue, whether other evidence can adequately answer that question, and whether the balance of competing interests favours directing the test. Applying these principles, the Court held that the question of paternity lay at the heart of the dispute before the Family Court. It observed that Section 125 of the Code extends the right to claim maintenance to both legitimate and illegitimate children. Consequently, determination of biological paternity lay at the heart of the controversy before the Family Court, as it had a direct bearing on the children's claim for maintenance.

The Court also considered the applicability of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act whichstates that a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage, or within 280 days after its dissolution if the mother remains unmarried, is conclusively presumed to be the legitimate child of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at the time when the child could have been begotten. However, the court held that the question of invoking the presumption under Section 112 did not arise in the peculiar facts of the present case. Ravi’s own case was that he had a valid and subsisting marriage with Kumkum Devi throughout the relevant period, and the learned Family Court, Munger, had also held that the said marriage was valid. Therefore, the controversy was not one where a party sought to rebut or displace the statutory presumption under Section 112 by resorting to DNA testing. Rather, the issue was whether the children were the biological children of Ravi and , whether Ravi could be held liable to pay maintenance to them.

Ravi, the alleged father argued that directing a DNA test would affect his own reputation and that of his legally wedded wife, who holds public office. The Court rejected this contention observing that if Ravi truly had no connection whatsoever with the children, a DNA test would vindicate his stand and protect his reputation in society. The Court observed that the law cannot permit history to be rewritten merely because a person's present social circumstances make him uncomfortable about his past. While acknowledging that Ravi’slegally wedded wife may herself be an innocent victim of circumstances created by Ravi’sconduct, the Court held that sympathy for her situation could not become a justification for denying justice to the children . The Court observed that the children had no role in the circumstances of their birth. Their right to know their biological parentage was connected not merely with maintenance but also with identity, dignity and the legal rights flowing from the determination of paternity.

Importantly, the Court clarified that it was not concerned with policing the private choices of consenting adults. However, once those choices give rise to legal consequences affecting innocent children, the law cannot permit adults to evade the responsibilities arising from them. The Court also observed that while financial support may sustain the body, the knowledge of one's parentage and identity sustains the individual as a person.

The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court's direction for a DNA test, holding that the question of paternity of the children was directly in issue and that the children had produced sufficient prima facie material to justify scientific examination.

The judgment reiterates that DNA testing cannot be directed as a matter of routine. At the same time, where the issue of paternity is directly in question and the facts and circumstances warrant recourse to scientific evidence in the interest of justice, courts may direct DNA testing. The Court further clarified that, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the controversy was not one concerning the statutory presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, but whether the children were the biological children of Ravi and, consequently, whether he could be held liable to maintain them. It also held that apprehensions of social or reputational consequences cannot, by themselves, justify refusing scientific examination where the rights of innocent children are at stake.