The Allahabad High Court has set aside a family court’s judgment that had directed a man to pay maintenance allowance to his daughter while rejecting his request for a DNA test.
Stating that a father and daughter have every right to know if they are biologically related, the HC has now ordered the trial court to get the DNA test done to confirm paternity and decide the maintenance application accordingly.
In March 2025, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra, had ordered Jawahir Jaiswal to pay maintenance of Rs 6,000 to his minor daughter while rejecting his application for a DNA test to ascertain parentage.
The man claimed he and his wife were separated, that she had been living with another man since 2000, and that the girl seeking maintenance was born in 2011.
Jaiswal then filed a revision petition in the High Court seeking quashing of the order.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh, hearing the petition on March 17, observed, “… a father has every right to know whether he is the biological father of the daughter or not. Similarly, a daughter also has every right to know who is her biological father… because if this is not known, it will continue to trouble both of them throughout their lives and they will not be able to lead their lives properly in society.”
The court further observed that it is essential to consider the broader implications of directing a DNA test, adding that it is mindful of the potential trauma and stigma to the child should the paternity dispute be subjected to public scrutiny.
Story continues below this ad
However, it also observed that the right to maintenance is not merely a legal provision but is deeply rooted in fundamental human rights. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the right to an adequate standard of living, which includes food, clothing, housing, and medical care. In the context of children, maintenance is indispensable for their survival, growth, and development. Denying maintenance due to unresolved paternity issues would be a violation of their basic human rights,” the bench stated in its order.
How it started
The dispute over paternity began in November 2019 when the minor girl filed an application in the Family Court, through her mother, seeking maintenance. She claimed Jaiswal was her father, but he objected to it.
In support of his claim, the man, through his counsel, submitted in court that he and his wife got married in 1994 but claimed she used to pick fights and insult him as he was not very handsome.
Jaiswal claimed in February 2000, she left and started living with another man. In his application, he further alleged that the minor girl was born out of her relationship with the other man in 2011.
Story continues below this ad
He also moved the DNA test application in the trial court, which was rejected on February 1, 2025.
Contrasting claims
In its order, the HC bench stated that some disturbing facts emerge from the records.
In the maintenance application, the girl’s mother alleged she was thrown out of the house by her husband and in-laws in February 2000. She had then moved court seeking maintenance in January 2001.
An order was passed in her favour, but the husband did not comply. Following an oral order by the court, she returned to her matrimonial house in July 2009. After a month, the application claimed, she went to her parental house.
Story continues below this ad
She further stated in the application that she went to her matrimonial house again on January 15, 2010, where she stayed for four months and became pregnant. She claimed on January 1, 2011, she gave birth to a girl — the same child seeking maintenance.
However, Jaiswal, in his objection filed in the Family Court, offered a contrasting version.
He alleged that his wife came home on July, 25, 2009, and told him she was pregnant. He claimed he was surprised and sought that she undergo a medical examination. This application was rejected by the trial court.
The bench of Justice Singh, in its order, stated that from a deeper scrutiny of the aforesaid facts, “this court is fully unable to find out as to when and how many times the mother of the girl went to her husband’s house after 2000, for how many days she stayed with him, when she became pregnant, when she gave birth to a child, and who exactly is her biological father”.
Story continues below this ad
It further observed that, prima facie, “there is substance in the submission made by the counsel for the revisionist (Jaiswal) that he is not the biological father. However, for ascertaining the correct facts… a DNA test of both is required”.
The bench stated in its order that after the test is undertaken, “the trial court is directed to… decide the case of maintenance allowance afresh on merits, in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties, preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties if there is no other legal impediment”.
