Q1. Consider the following statements about the Supreme Court ruling in Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique (April 21, 2026):\n1. The Court held that conclusive DNA evidence proving non-paternity prevails over the Section 112 presumption.\n2. DNA testing in such cases is automatic and does not require informed consent or chain-of-custody safeguards.\n3. Once paternity is disproved through valid DNA evidence, no maintenance obligation can arise on the alleged father.\nWhich of the statements given above are correct?
Explanation
Statements 1 and 3 are correct: the Court ruled that conclusive DNA evidence prevails over Section 112 (1) and that consequently no maintenance obligation arises (3). Statement 2 is incorrect: the Court explicitly required strict informed consent and chain-of-custody protocols for DNA testing — it is NOT automatic, though unjustified refusal may invite an adverse inference.