Allahabad High Court Orders DNA Test to Determine Paternity, Sets Aside Maintenance Granted to Minor Girl

By Rajesh Pandey

The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order of the Family Court, which had granted maintenance to a minor girl, directing that a DNA test be conducted first to determine her biological parentage.

The court observed that in cases involving unusual and disputed facts, both the alleged father and the child have a right to know the biological truth.

The order was passed by Justice Madan Pal Singh on March 17 while hearing a criminal revision petition filed by Jawahir Lal Jaiswal, who had challenged the March 2025 judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra.

The Family Court had earlier allowed the maintenance application filed on behalf of the minor girl and directed the revisionist to pay Rs 3,000 per month from the date of filing of the application and Rs 6,000 per month from the date of the judgment until her marriage.

The Family Court had also rejected the father’s request for a DNA test to determine paternity.

Before the High Court, the father contended that his marriage with the girl’s mother was solemnised in June 1994, but she left the matrimonial home in February 2000 without any valid reason.

He alleged that thereafter she lived in an adulterous relationship with another man and that the minor girl, born in 2011, was the result of that relationship.

According to the petitioner, since there had been no physical relationship between him and his wife after February 2000, he could not be the biological father of the child.

The petitioner further argued that the issue of paternity was central to the dispute and that conducting a DNA test was essential to establish the truth.

On the other hand, counsel representing the minor girl as well as the State opposed the revision petition, arguing that there was no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Family Court and that the maintenance granted to the child was justified.

Upon examining the records of the trial court, the High Court noted inconsistencies in the facts presented.

While the maintenance application claimed that the mother had stayed at her matrimonial home for about four months in 2010 and delivered the child on January 1, 2011, the medical documents placed before the court suggested otherwise.

Justice Singh observed that the birth certificate showed that a child had been born to the couple on November 20, 2009.

Additionally, another medical certificate revealed that the woman had delivered a second child in July 2017, in which her alleged partner was officially recorded as the father.

During the hearing, counsel for the minor girl admitted that the woman had left the petitioner after 2011 and had been residing with her alleged partner, who was the father of the second child born in 2017.

However, it was argued that the first child was indeed the daughter of the revisionist.

The High Court, however, found the facts unclear and observed that it was difficult to ascertain when and for how long the woman had resided with her husband after 2000, when she became pregnant, and who the biological father of the minor girl actually was.

Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, the court found prima facie merit in the father’s claim and held that a DNA test was necessary to establish the correct facts regarding the child’s biological parentage.

While noting the Supreme Court’s decision in R. Rajendran vs Kamar Nisha & Others (2025), which held that DNA tests should not be ordered routinely to determine paternity, the High Court balanced this principle with a 2024 judgment in Sachin Agarwal vs State of Uttar Pradesh, where DNA testing was permitted to prevent injustice arising from unresolved questions of parentage.

Justice Madan Pal Singh concluded that the Family Court had passed the maintenance order based on vague assertions and without sufficient evidence on the crucial issue of biological parentage.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s order and directed the trial court to conduct a DNA test of the petitioner and the minor girl.

The High Court further directed that, after receiving the DNA test results, the Family Court shall reconsider and decide the maintenance application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code afresh on merits, preferably within a period of three months.

The judgment underscores the importance of establishing biological truth in exceptional cases where paternity is seriously disputed, while also ensuring that legal decisions relating to maintenance are based on clear and reliable evidence.