Introduction:

The present case arose out of a criminal revision petition filed by Jawahir Lal Jaiswal before the Allahabad High Court challenging the legality of a maintenance order passed by the Family Court in Sonbhadra under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Family Court had directed the revisionist to pay maintenance to a minor girl, treating him as her father, while rejecting his plea for conducting a DNA test to determine the child’s biological parentage. The dispute revolved around serious allegations raised by the revisionist that his wife had left the matrimonial home in the year 2000 and had subsequently been living in an adulterous relationship with another man, from which the minor girl was allegedly born in 2011. The case thus presented a complex intersection of family law, criminal procedure, and questions of biological identity. Justice Madan Pal Singh, while adjudicating the revision, was faced with determining whether maintenance could be granted in the absence of clarity regarding paternity, and whether a DNA test was necessary in the peculiar facts of the case. The Court emphasized that both the alleged father and the child have a fundamental right to know the biological truth, particularly when such uncertainty could have long-lasting social and psychological implications.

Arguments of the Revisionist Father:

That the revisionist contended that the Family Court had committed a grave error in granting maintenance without first resolving the foundational issue of paternity. It was argued that the marriage between the revisionist and the mother of the minor girl was solemnized in June 1994, but the marital relationship had effectively ceased in February 2000 when the wife left the matrimonial home without any justification. According to the revisionist, there had been no cohabitation or physical relationship between him and his wife after that period, thereby making it biologically impossible for him to be the father of a child allegedly born in 2011.

That the revisionist further submitted that his wife had been living in adultery with another man after leaving the matrimonial home and that the minor girl was born out of that illicit relationship. He asserted that the claim of paternity made against him was false and unsupported by credible evidence. The revisionist emphasized that compelling him to pay maintenance without conclusively establishing his biological relationship with the child would amount to a miscarriage of justice.

That the counsel for the revisionist strongly pressed for a DNA test, arguing that it was the most reliable scientific method to determine biological parentage. It was submitted that in a case where the paternity of a child is seriously disputed and there exist glaring inconsistencies in the evidence, the Court ought to exercise its power to order such a test in the interest of justice. The denial of this request by the Family Court, according to the revisionist, had resulted in an unjust order based on mere presumptions.

That it was also contended that the documentary evidence on record raised serious doubts about the version presented by the opposite party. The revisionist pointed out discrepancies in the birth records and medical documents, which suggested conflicting dates regarding the birth of the child. These inconsistencies, it was argued, further strengthened the need for a DNA test to ascertain the truth.

That the revisionist ultimately argued that the right to know one’s biological identity is not only a legal issue but also a matter of personal dignity and social standing. He maintained that unless the question of paternity was conclusively resolved, any order directing him to pay maintenance would be legally unsustainable.

Arguments of the Opposite Party and the State:

That the counsel for the minor girl and the State opposed the revision petition and supported the judgment of the Family Court. It was argued that the maintenance order passed under Section 125 CrPC was based on the welfare of the child, which is the paramount consideration in such cases. The counsel submitted that the Family Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and had found sufficient grounds to hold the revisionist liable to pay maintenance.

That it was contended that the plea for a DNA test was rightly rejected by the Family Court, as such tests cannot be ordered as a matter of routine. The counsel relied on judicial precedents to argue that courts must exercise caution while directing DNA tests, as they may have serious implications on the privacy and dignity of individuals, particularly the child.

That the counsel for the minor girl admitted that the mother had been living separately from the revisionist and was in a relationship with another man, who was the father of a second child born in 2017. However, it was strongly maintained that the minor girl in question was born out of the lawful wedlock between the revisionist and her mother. The counsel argued that merely because the mother had entered into another relationship later, it could not be presumed that the first child was not the revisionist’s daughter.

That it was further submitted that there was no illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s order and that the revisionist was attempting to evade his legal responsibility by raising frivolous doubts regarding paternity. The counsel emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is a beneficial provision aimed at preventing destitution and vagrancy, and therefore, it must be interpreted liberally in favor of the child.

That the State supported these arguments and contended that the revision petition lacked merit and ought to be dismissed. It was argued that the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously and that there was no need for interference by the High Court.

Court’s Judgment:

That the Allahabad High Court, after carefully examining the facts and evidence on record, found that the case involved peculiar circumstances that warranted a deeper inquiry into the issue of paternity. Justice Madan Pal Singh observed that the determination of biological parentage was central to the adjudication of the maintenance claim and could not be ignored.

That the Court noted significant inconsistencies in the evidence presented before the Family Court. While the application for maintenance claimed that the child was born in January 2011, the birth certificate indicated a different date in November 2009. Additionally, medical records revealed that the mother had given birth to another child in 2017, naming a different man as the father. These discrepancies raised serious doubts about the credibility of the claims made by the opposite party.

That the Court emphasized that in such circumstances, both the alleged father and the child have a right to know the truth regarding biological parentage. The Court observed that uncertainty in this regard could have lasting consequences on their lives and their ability to function in society with dignity.

That while acknowledging the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha & Others that DNA tests should not be ordered as a matter of course, the Court clarified that such tests can be directed in exceptional cases where the facts demand it. The present case, according to the Court, fell within such an exception due to the conflicting evidence and serious dispute regarding paternity.

That the Court also relied on the precedent set in Sachin Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it was held that denial of maintenance due to unresolved paternity issues could violate basic human rights. However, the Court balanced this principle by stating that such rights must be grounded in factual truth, which can only be established through scientific means in the present case.

That the Court found that the Family Court had erred in granting maintenance solely on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated assertions without first determining the fundamental issue of paternity. The rejection of the request for a DNA test was held to be unjustified in light of the peculiar facts of the case.

That accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Family Court and directed that a DNA test be conducted to ascertain the biological relationship between the revisionist and the minor girl. The Court further directed that upon receiving the test results, the Family Court shall decide the application for maintenance afresh on its merits within a period of three months.

That the judgment thus reinforces the principle that while the welfare of the child is paramount, it must be balanced with the rights of the alleged father and the need for establishing factual truth. The Court made it clear that maintenance cannot be imposed in the absence of clarity regarding paternity when such an issue is seriously contested and supported by prima facie evidence.