Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu, 2026 INSC 399 - DNA Test - Undisputed
Despite technological advancements by leaps and bounds, Section 112 IEA presumption has been retained to save any child from the stigma of illegitimacy
Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 112 - Despite technological advancements by leaps and bounds, this presumption has been retained to save any child from the stigma of illegitimacy - [Context: In this case the DNA test has been conducted, the appellant consented to the same and has, not even once disputed the conclusion thereof - SC upheld the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant maintenance to her minor daughter from the respondent, whose paternity had been negatived by a DNA test ordered and accepted without challenge. ]
Case Info
Case Information
Case name and neutral citation:Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu, 2026 INSC 399
Coram:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay KarolHon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Judgment date:21 April 2026 (Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Case laws and citations referred
The judgment refers to and discusses:
- Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq, (1987) 1 SCC 624
- Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B., (1993) 3 SCC 418
- Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, (2014) 2 SCC 576
- Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women, (2010) 8 SCC 633
- Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, (2015) 1 SCC 365
- Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram, (2001) 5 SCC 311
- Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, (2024) 7 SCC 773
- Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 175
- Sharda v. Dharmpal (referred to in a footnote, as “Sharda, supra note 1”)
Statutes / laws referred
The Court refers to and applies:
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – especially Section 112 (Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy).
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 116 (Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy), noted as the successor to Section 112 with identical wording.
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 (application by aggrieved person for reliefs including maintenance).
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 (divorce: referred to in context of the earlier decisions, especially Dipanwita Roy).
Brief summary (three sentences)
The appellant-mother challenged the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant maintenance to her minor daughter from the respondent, whose paternity had been negatived by a DNA test ordered and accepted without challenge. The Supreme Court examined the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act (and its parallel Section 116 BSA, 2023) and, following Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik, held that where an unchallenged DNA report conclusively excludes paternity, that scientific proof prevails over the statutory presumption, so the child is not entitled to maintenance from the respondent. While dismissing the appeal on child’s maintenance, the Court expressed concern for the child’s welfare and directed the Secretary, Women and Child Development, GNCTD, to assess and, where required, remedy the child’s situation regarding education, nutrition, health, and basic living conditions.
