The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that a court may permit DNA testing in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC when there is a serious, bona fide dispute over paternity, even where the child was born during a valid marriage. This ruling balances the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act with the imperative of truth-seeking in judicial proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Bharti Sahu and her minor son Naitik Kumar Sahu, challenged an order dated 27 September 2024 passed by the Family Court, Durg, directing a DNA test to determine the paternity of the minor child. The respondent, Vijay Kumar Sahu, the husband of Bharti Sahu, disputed paternity in maintenance proceedings initiated under Section 125 CrPC. He alleged that the child was conceived prior to the marriage, which took place on 24 April 2018, and that the child was born on 27 December 2018.
Procedural History
- 24 April 2018: Marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent solemnized
- 27 December 2018: Birth of minor child (petitioner No.2)
- 2019: Maintenance proceedings initiated under Section 125 CrPC by petitioners
- 2024: Respondent filed application for DNA testing in maintenance proceedings
- 27 September 2024: Family Court allowed DNA test application
- 9 October 2024: Family Court granted divorce decree, recording that petitioner No.1 was 36 weeks pregnant at the time of marriage
- 22 January 2026: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition dismissed by Chhattisgarh High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the Family Court’s order directing DNA testing, arguing that it violated the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act and undermined the summary nature of Section 125 CrPC proceedings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which creates a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage, bars a court from ordering a DNA test to determine paternity in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC when compelling evidence suggests the child may not be the biological offspring of the husband.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners contended that Section 112 provides an absolute and conclusive presumption of legitimacy, which can only be rebutted by proving non-access at the time of conception. They argued that the respondent had not pleaded or proved non-access, and that raising paternity disputes in maintenance proceedings was a tactic to evade statutory obligations. They relied on Kantidevi v. Poshiram and Banarsi Dass v. Tiku Dutta to assert that DNA tests should not be permitted in summary proceedings, as they risk irreparable harm to the child’s dignity and the wife’s reputation.
For the Respondent
The respondent argued that the Family Court’s order was justified by judicial findings in the connected divorce proceedings, which recorded that the wife was 36 weeks pregnant at the time of marriage. He contended that paternity is a foundational fact for determining entitlement to maintenance, and that Section 125 CrPC does not preclude scientific evidence when legitimacy is genuinely disputed. He relied on Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy and Preeti Miraniya v. Sanjay Miraniya to show that courts may permit DNA testing without violating privacy, provided the party retains the right to refuse, with consequences.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act and the procedural flexibility of Section 125 CrPC. It acknowledged that Section 112 creates a strong presumption, but emphasized that it is not inviolable when confronted with credible, evidence-based challenges to legitimacy.
"The presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act is not absolute in all circumstances, and where compelling facts exist giving rise to a serious and bona fide dispute regarding paternity, the Court is not powerless to permit scientific examination for arriving at the truth."
The Court noted that the Family Court had not acted mechanically. It relied on judicial findings from the divorce decree, admissions during cross-examination, and the respondent’s specific pleadings. The Court further affirmed the principle from Dipanwita Roy, that while a party cannot be compelled to undergo DNA testing, refusal carries legal consequences under Section 114(h) of the Evidence Act, which permits adverse inference from refusal to answer.
The Court distinguished between compulsion and direction: the order merely permitted testing and preserved the petitioners’ right to decline, with the understanding that non-compliance may lead to an adverse inference. This approach, the Court held, respects both the right to privacy and the need for truth in adjudication.
The Verdict
The petitioners’ challenge was dismissed. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that DNA testing may be ordered in Section 125 CrPC proceedings when a serious, evidence-based dispute over paternity exists, even if the child was born during a valid marriage. The Court clarified that while the parties cannot be forced to submit to testing, refusal may result in an adverse inference under Section 114(h).
What This Means For Similar Cases
Paternity Disputes Can Override Section 112 Presumption
- Practitioners must now assess whether allegations of non-paternity are supported by credible evidence, not merely speculative
- A mere denial of paternity without factual foundation will not justify a DNA test
- Judicial findings in connected proceedings (e.g., divorce) may form the basis for a bona fide dispute
Adverse Inference Applies to Refusal
- If a party refuses to undergo DNA testing after a court order, the court may draw an adverse inference under Section 114(h)
- This shifts the tactical burden: refusal may be interpreted as an admission of non-paternity or adultery
- Counsel must advise clients on the legal consequences of declining testing
Section 125 Proceedings Are Not Immune to Scientific Evidence
- Summary nature of maintenance proceedings does not preclude scientific inquiry when legitimacy is genuinely in question
- Courts may permit DNA testing to prevent abuse of Section 125 as a tool for financial exploitation
- The test must be proportionate, necessary, and tied to the core issue of entitlement
