Section 125 CrPC|Refusal To Undergo DNA Test Can Go Against Husband In Maintenance Case: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a man's refusal to undergo a DNA fingerprinting test in a maintenance dispute can justify drawing an adverse inference against him, while reiterating that proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are meant to prevent destitution and do not require strict proof of marriage as demanded in criminal trials.

Justice Gajendra Singh passed the ruling while allowing a criminal revision filed by petitioner and her son, setting aside concurrent findings of the Gram Nyayalaya, Biaora, and the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, which had rejected their claim for maintenance. The Court directed the respondent to pay maintenance of ₹5,000 per month each to the woman and the child, totalling ₹10,000 per month, from the date of the original application filed in 2014.

The revision petitioners had approached the court claiming that petitioner was married to respondent about 14 to 15 years earlier according to Hindu rites and that their son was born from the relationship. They alleged that they were later driven out of the matrimonial home and left without any financial support despite the respondent being a government school teacher with agricultural income.

Respondent denied the marriage and claimed that he was already married to another woman from whom he had two children. According to him, petitioner had merely worked in his house as domestic help for a monthly remuneration of ₹1,000 when his wife was away. He further alleged that she left after committing theft and filed the maintenance proceedings only to harass him because he was a government employee.

Both the trial court and the appellate court accepted his defence and rejected the maintenance claim, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish that she was the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that the child was his son.

During the pendency of the revision before the High Court, the petitioners sought a DNA fingerprinting test to establish the paternity of the child. The application was ultimately rejected because the respondent was unwilling to undergo the test. However, the High Court clarified that his refusal could still be considered while deciding the case.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, the Court observed that the standard of proof required in maintenance proceedings is not as strict as in prosecutions for bigamy. It noted that where a woman and a man have lived together as husband and wife, a presumption of marriage can arise, and the burden shifts to the person denying the relationship.

The High Court found several circumstances that favoured the petitioners. It noted that respondent himself admitted that petitioner was not a stranger and was related to his family. The Court also pointed out that while initially denying recognition of the child, he later admitted that the boy was petitioner's son. Independent witnesses consistently testified that the marriage had taken place according to Hindu customs and that the child was born from the union.

Significantly, the Court questioned respondent's explanation that petitioner had merely worked in his house for one and a half years while his wife was away. It observed that he had not explained with whom petitioner was married if she was not his wife, nor had he identified who the father of the child was. The Court further noted that he actively opposed the request for a DNA test that could have conclusively determined paternity.

Holding that these facts warranted an adverse inference, Justice Singh observed, "Accordingly, this Court considers it a fit case to invoke an adverse inference against the respondent and such adverse inference is drawn." The Court further stated that "Merely because respondent is claiming that he was legally married to another woman Krishnabai with whom two children have been born cannot be a ground to deny the maintenance."

Allowing the revision, the Court directed payment of maintenance from 27 April 2014. It clarified that petitioner would continue to receive maintenance until remarriage, while the son's entitlement would continue until he attains majority.

Case Title: Seemabai and Others v. Basantilal

Date of Order: May 20, 2026

Bench: Justice Gajendra Singh