The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a mother seeking financial support for her minor daughter. The court upheld earlier findings that the respondent was not the biological father, relying on a DNA test that had gone unchallenged.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a dispute between Nikhat Parveen, also known as Khusboo Khatoon, and Rafique alias Shillu. The appellant had worked as a domestic help in the respondent’s house, where their relationship developed, allegedly on the promise of marriage. The two later married in March 2016, and a child was born shortly after.
However, the relationship deteriorated quickly. The appellant approached a trial court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance, protection, and return of her belongings. In response, the respondent denied the allegations and requested a DNA test to determine paternity.
The DNA report, dated May 2017, concluded that the respondent was not the biological father. Based on this, the trial court rejected the child’s claim for maintenance. The decision was upheld by the appellate court and later by the Delhi High Court.
Hearing the appeal, the bench led by Justice Sanjay Karol closely examined Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which presumes legitimacy of a child born during a valid marriage.
“The legislative intent is clear… to save any child from the stigma of illegitimacy,” the bench noted, highlighting the protective nature of the law.
However, the court also acknowledged the evolving role of scientific evidence. Referring to earlier rulings, it observed that while courts are cautious in ordering DNA tests, once such a test is conducted and accepted, its findings carry significant weight.
Importantly, the court pointed out that the appellant had consented to the DNA test and had never challenged its outcome.
“The DNA test… has attained finality,” the bench remarked.
The judges further clarified that this case differed from others where courts had resisted DNA testing to protect a child’s identity. Here, the scientific evidence was already on record and undisputed.
The Supreme Court concluded that no legal error existed in the High Court’s decision denying maintenance to the child. Upholding the reliance on DNA evidence, the court ruled that the respondent could not be held liable.
“The appeal is bereft of merit and, therefore, dismissed,” the bench stated.
At the same time, the court expressed concern for the welfare of the child. It directed the Delhi government’s Women and Child Development Department to assess the child’s living conditions and ensure support if needed.
Case details
Case Title: Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon vs. Rafique @ Shillu
Judge: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Decision Date: April 21, 2026
