In Nikhat Parveen alias Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique alias Shillu, decided on April 22, 2026 (cited as 2026 LSI (SC) 100), the Supreme Court of India held that conclusive DNA evidence proving non-paternity prevails over the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and consequently no maintenance obligation can arise where biological paternity stands disproved. The bench emphasised that scientific certainty must supersede legal fiction wherever incontrovertible biological proof contradicts a statutory presumption. Section 112, which presumes a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage to be the legitimate child of the husband unless non-access during conception is proved, has long been treated as nearly conclusive. The judgment crystallises a two-decade judicial evolution from protecting social legitimacy at all costs towards prioritising evidentiary accuracy in determining parental responsibility, while preserving procedural safeguards: DNA testing must follow strict consent and chain-of-custody protocols, and unjustified refusal to undergo lawful testing may invite an adverse inference. The ruling affects pending Section 125 CrPC and Section 144 BNSS maintenance proceedings nationwide, including those before family courts, and intersects with constitutional guarantees of dignity under Article 21 and the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).
Supreme Court Holds in Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique on April 22, 2026 that Conclusive DNA Evidence Prevails Over Section 112 Indian Evidence Act Presumption; No Maintenance Where Paternity Is Disproved
On April 22, 2026, the Supreme Court in Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique (2026 LSI (SC) 100) ruled that conclusive DNA evidence proving non-paternity prevails over Section 112 Indian Evidence Act presumption, ending the maintenance obligation when paternity is disproved. The judgment requires strict consent and chain-of-custody for DNA testing and impacts pending Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS proceedings.
Key facts
- On April 22, 2026, the Supreme Court of India in Nikhat Parveen alias Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique alias Shillu held that conclusive DNA evidence proving non-paternity prevails over the Section 112 Indian Evidence Act presumption.
- The case is cited as 2026 LSI (SC) 100; once paternity is disproved by valid DNA evidence, no maintenance obligation can arise.
- Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 presumes a child born during a valid marriage to be the legitimate child of the husband, unless non-access during conception is shown.
- The Court held: 'DNA evidence, when validly obtained and conclusive, prevails over Section 112 presumption.'
- DNA testing must follow strict consent and chain-of-custody safeguards; unjustified refusal to undergo lawful testing may invite an adverse inference.
- The ruling will affect pending maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (and Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita-aligned procedure).
- The judgment crystallises a two-decade judicial shift from protecting social legitimacy at all costs to prioritising evidentiary accuracy.
6-axis classification
Appears in these topics
Practice MCQ from this story
SolveTap an option below. Correct or incorrect feedback appears instantly.
Which provision of which statute concerning the presumption of legitimacy was the subject of the Supreme Court's ruling in Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique on April 21, 2026?
Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 establishes the presumption of legitimacy of a child born during a valid marriage. The Supreme Court held that conclusive DNA evidence prevails over this Section 112 presumption when paternity is disproved, ending any maintenance obligation.
Source: Legal Services India
Frequently asked questions
What did the Supreme Court hold in Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique on April 22, 2026?
The Court held that conclusive DNA evidence proving non-paternity prevails over the Section 112 Indian Evidence Act presumption of legitimacy, and once paternity is disproved no maintenance obligation can arise on the alleged father.
What does Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provide?
Section 112 provides that a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage between the mother and any man, or within 280 days after its dissolution if the mother remained unmarried, is conclusively presumed to be the legitimate child of that man, unless it is shown that the parties had no access to each other at the time the child could have been begotten.
Does the judgment make DNA testing automatic in maintenance cases?
No. The Court emphasised strict procedural safeguards including informed consent and chain-of-custody protocols. DNA testing is not automatic; however, an unjustified refusal to undergo lawful testing may invite an adverse inference against the refusing party.
Which maintenance provisions does this ruling affect?
The ruling affects pending and future maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the corresponding Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita-aligned procedure, and family-court matters.
Was this useful?
Share corrections or missing exam angles with the editorial team.
Send feedback