Delhi High Court Upholds DNA Test to Decide Paternity in Maintenance Case, Holds Children’s Right to Identity Cannot Be Defeated by Adult’s Reputation Concerns
Facts
The Delhi High Court was dealing with a petition filed by Ravi Kumar challenging the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, North-West, Rohini, Delhi, in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. By the said order, the Family Court had allowed an application filed by respondent nos. 2 to 4 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and directed DNA testing of the petitioner and the said respondents to determine their paternity.
Respondent no. 1, Geeta Devi, had filed a maintenance petition claiming that she had married the petitioner on 16.05.1991 at Shakarpur, Delhi, and that three children were born from the relationship in 1995, 1999 and 2002. She alleged that the petitioner had lived with her as husband and wife in Delhi, later abandoned her and the children in 2005, and failed to maintain them. The petitioner denied the marriage, denied cohabitation, denied paternity, and asserted that he was already married to Smt. Kumkum Devi since 06.02.1986 at Nalanda, Bihar.
The respondents relied upon photographs, voter identity card, ration card, school records, and the testimony of the landlady to show that the petitioner had lived with respondent no. 1 and was reflected in public documents as the father of respondent nos. 2 to 4. The petitioner argued that these documents were forged, fabricated, and unproved. He also relied upon proceedings from the Family Court, Munger, Bihar, where Smt. Kumkum Devi was held to be his legally wedded wife and respondent no. 1 failed to establish her marriage with him.
Issues
- Whether the Family Court was justified in directing DNA testing of the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 4 for determining paternity.
- Whether the petitioner’s denial of marriage and paternity, despite public documents and other prima facie material, required scientific determination.
- Whether the validity of the alleged marriage between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 was decisive for determining the children’s claim for maintenance.
- Whether concerns of reputation and social embarrassment could outweigh the children’s right to know their biological parentage and seek maintenance.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Family Court had mechanically directed DNA testing without properly appreciating the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal. He submitted that DNA testing cannot be ordered as a matter of routine and that the respondents had failed to make out a strong prima facie case.
He contended that the proceedings were allegedly initiated in collusion with the political opponents of his legally wedded wife, Smt. Kumkum Devi, who held public office, and that the real object was to malign his family’s reputation. He further argued that the case was still at the evidence stage, respondent no. 1 had not completed her cross-examination, and the petitioner had not yet led evidence.
The petitioner also submitted that the documents relied upon by the respondents, including the ration card, voter card and school certificates, were not yet proved and were forged and fabricated. He argued that respondent no. 1 had failed to establish that he ever lived with her in Delhi or had access to her. He further relied upon the Family Court, Munger judgment holding Smt. Kumkum Devi to be his legally wedded wife and holding that respondent no. 1 had failed to prove her marriage with him.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents argued that the petitioner had consistently denied both his relationship with respondent no. 1 and the paternity of respondent nos. 2 to 4, making DNA testing necessary for effective adjudication of the maintenance proceedings.
They submitted that the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act was filed to discover the truth and scientifically determine paternity. They relied upon photographs, birth-related records, school documents, public records and the testimony of the landlady to show cohabitation and to establish that the petitioner had been publicly reflected as the father of respondent nos. 2 to 4.
The respondents also submitted that the issue of paternity went to the root of the Section 125 CrPC proceedings, since respondent nos. 2 to 4 claimed maintenance as the petitioner’s children. They argued that even if the alleged marriage between respondent no. 1 and the petitioner was not legally valid, the children’s claim to maintenance could still survive if paternity was established.
Analysis of the Law
The Court clarified that the issue before it was not whether the alleged marriage between Ravi Kumar and Geeta Devi was valid. That question had already been considered separately by the Family Court, Munger. The real question before the High Court was whether the Family Court’s direction for DNA testing was legally justified to determine whether respondent nos. 2 to 4 were the biological children of the petitioner.
The Court held that the material on record, including photographs, voter ID, ration card, school records and testimony of the landlady, constituted prima facie material indicating that the petitioner and respondent no. 1 may have shared a relationship and that respondent nos. 2 to 4 may have been born from it.
The Court also held that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act did not arise in the usual manner in this case. The controversy was not about displacing the presumption of legitimacy of children born during a valid marriage. Instead, the issue was whether respondent nos. 2 to 4, who claimed to be born from a relationship outside a valid marriage, were biologically fathered by the petitioner.
The Court further noted that Section 125(1) CrPC is not limited only to legitimate children and also extends maintenance rights to illegitimate children. Therefore, paternity had a direct and substantial bearing on the maintenance proceedings.
Precedent Analysis
The Court considered Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, where the Supreme Court held that blood tests or DNA tests cannot be ordered as a matter of course and should not be used for roving inquiries. However, the High Court held that Goutam Kundu does not prohibit DNA testing in appropriate cases where paternity is directly in issue and scientific evidence is necessary.
The Court also referred to Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, and Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique, which collectively lay down that DNA testing should be ordered cautiously and only where the issue cannot be effectively resolved by other evidence.
The Court placed strong reliance on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chaturbhuj Pradhan v. Amar Pradhan, where the Supreme Court upheld DNA testing after balancing the alleged father’s privacy concerns with the child’s right to know biological parentage. The High Court applied this principle and held that the balance of interests in the present case favoured the children.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the case was not about moral scrutiny of adult relationships, but about the legal and human consequences arising from such relationships, particularly when children are involved. It observed that public documents and lived circumstances had prima facie reflected the petitioner as the father of respondent nos. 2 to 4, and the children had themselves sought DNA testing to establish their biological parentage.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument based on reputational harm. It reasoned that if the petitioner had no connection with respondent nos. 1 to 4, as claimed by him, a DNA test would only vindicate his stand. The Court observed that reputation cannot become a shield against truth and that judicial process cannot be restrained merely because the truth may cause embarrassment to an adult.
The Court further held that children cannot become casualties of adult choices. It observed that children born from such alleged relationships have no role in the circumstances of their birth, and their right to identity, dignity and maintenance cannot be subordinated to the social discomfort of adults.
The Court found that the Family Court had not mechanically ordered DNA testing. Rather, it had done so after considering the prima facie material and the fact that paternity was directly in issue in the maintenance proceedings.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Ravi Kumar and upheld the Family Court’s order directing DNA testing. The Court held that the question of paternity was directly in issue and could not be treated as merely incidental. Since respondent nos. 2 to 4 had placed prima facie material showing the petitioner as their father, and since the petitioner had completely denied paternity, DNA testing was necessary for effective adjudication.
The Court held that the right of children to know their biological parentage, assert their identity and seek maintenance cannot be defeated merely because an adult fears reputational consequences.
Case Details
Case: Ravi Kumar v. Geeta Devi & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 3855/2024 and CRL.M.A. 14726/2024
Judge: Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Date: 03 July 2026
Result: Petition dismissed; Family Court order directing DNA test upheld.
