Delhi HC: Child’s Right To Know Parentage Overrides Adult’s Reputation, Upholds DNA Test

The Delhi High Court has held that an adult’s concern about reputational harm cannot outweigh a child’s right to know their biological parentage, observing that “reputation cannot become a shield against truth” and that “children cannot become casualties of adult choices.” The Court upheld a Family Court order directing a DNA test in a long-running maintenance dispute where three children sought to establish that a man was their biological father.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed a petition filed by Ravi Kumar challenging a March 2024 order of the Rohini Family Court. The Family Court had allowed an application seeking DNA testing of Ravi Kumar and three children who claimed to be born from his relationship with Geeta Devi. The children and their mother had initiated proceedings seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

According to the case record, Geeta Devi claimed that she had married Ravi Kumar in 1991 and that three children were born from the relationship. She alleged that he later abandoned the family and failed to maintain them. Ravi Kumar denied the marriage, denied paternity, and maintained that he had been legally married to Kumkum Devi since 1986. He also argued that documents relied upon by the respondents were fabricated.

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Babita Seth, argued that the Family Court had mechanically ordered DNA testing despite the matter being at the evidence stage. It was contended that the respondents had failed to establish a strong prima facie case and that the proceedings were intended to tarnish the reputation of the petitioner and his family. The petitioner further relied on matrimonial proceedings in Bihar to argue that no marital relationship existed between him and Geeta Devi.

Opposing the plea, Amicus Curiae Ms. Neelakshi Bhadauria, assisted by advocates Mr. Sarthak Karol and Ms. Tanishka Pawar, submitted that the petitioner had consistently denied both marriage and paternity despite documentary and oral evidence suggesting otherwise. They argued that scientific determination of paternity was essential for an effective decision on the maintenance claim.

The High Court noted that the respondents had placed several documents on record, including photographs allegedly showing the parties together, family photographs, voter records, ration card entries, school records and testimony from a landlady who stated that the parties had lived together and that the children were born during that period of cohabitation. The Court clarified that it was not deciding the final evidentiary value of those materials but found that they constituted sufficient prima facie material to justify an inquiry into paternity.

Emphasising the rights of the children, Justice Sharma observed that the application for DNA testing had been filed by the children themselves, who sought to establish their biological identity. The Court held that where children have long been recognised in public records as the offspring of a particular person, their claim cannot be ignored merely because the validity of the relationship between the adults is disputed.

The Court further observed that Section 125 CrPC extends maintenance rights even to illegitimate children and that determination of paternity therefore had a direct bearing on the pending proceedings. Referring to recent Supreme Court decisions on DNA testing, the Court held that such tests cannot be ordered routinely but may be directed where paternity is directly in issue and scientific evidence is necessary to reach the truth.

Rejecting the petitioner’s argument regarding reputational damage, the Court said that if he truly had no connection with the respondents, a DNA test would vindicate his stand. “The law cannot permit history to be rewritten merely because a person's present social circumstances make him uncomfortable about his past,” the Court remarked. Holding that the rights and identity of the children deserved greater protection than the embarrassment of adults, the Court upheld the Family Court’s order and dismissed the petition. The ruling was delivered on Friday.

Case Title: Ravi Kumar v. Geeta Devi & Ors.

Date of Judgment: July 3, 2026

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma