$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 65/2026 MANOJ .....Appellant Through: Mr. Baldev Raj Adv. along with Appellant in person. versus HEMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR O R D E R % 08.07.2026 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 65/2026 & CM APPL. 12822/2026 (stay) 1. The present appeal has been filed under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the Order dated 15.12.2025 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘impugned Order’) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Family Court’) in HMA No. 561388/2026, whereby the Family Court, while deciding an application under section 24 of the HMA, awarded interim maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife as well as the minor son. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-husband submits that the appellant does not dispute the grant of interim maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife. The challenge in the present appeal is confined solely to that part of the impugned order This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:53:43 whereby interim maintenance has been awarded in favour of the minor child. It is contended that the said finding is contrary to the material available on record and is, therefore, legally unsustainable. Reliance is placed upon the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Nikhat Parveen alias Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique alias Shillu, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 652, wherein it has been held that a person who is not the biological father of a minor child cannot be fastened with the liability to pay maintenance to such child. 3. He further submits that save and except the aforesaid challenge relating to the maintenance awarded in favour of the minor son, the appellant has no grievance against the remaining directions contained in the impugned order. 4. Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the record. 5. It is not in dispute that, during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings before the Family Court, the appellant had moved an application seeking a DNA/paternity test, specifically pleading that he was not the biological father of the minor child. 6. The record further reveals that, vide order dated 06.12.2022, the Family Court, with the consent of the respondent-wife as recorded in her statement dated 06.12.2022 before the Family Court, directed that a DNA/paternity test be conducted. Pursuant thereto, the requisite samples were collected at Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, and thereafter forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini, (hereinafter referred to as, ‘FSL’)for examination. The FSL Report dated 10.07.2023, which forms part of the record, unequivocally concludes that the appellant is not the biological father of the minor This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:53:43 child, while confirming that the respondent is the biological mother of the child. 7. The Supreme Court, in Nikhat Parveen alias Khusboo Khatoon (Supra), has held that that a person who is not the biological father of a minor child cannot be held liable to pay maintenance to such child. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are reproduced hereinbelow: “9. It has to be noted that the present case is distinguishable from the prevailing position in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (supra) since in that case the question before the Court was whether conducting a DNA test was in the best interest of the child or not. In this case the DNA test has been conducted, the appellant consented to the same and has, not even once disputed the conclusion thereof. It has, in other words attained finality. As such, the position in Badwaik (supra) would cover this case. In the aforesaid case, Badwaik was discussed as follows: “44. Further, in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik [Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, (2014) 2 SCC 576 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 145 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 65], the facts of the case were that due to non- opposition of the counsel for the wife, this Court directed that the serological test be conducted. The report was brought on record, which stated that the appellant husband was not the biological father of the minor child. At the request of the respondent wife, a re-test was ordered, which also revealed the same result. The plea with regard to the applicability of Section 112 of the Evidence Act was taken only after the DNA test was conducted on the direction of this Court and the report was brought on record. This Court held that when a report of a DNA test conducted on the direction of a court, was available on record and was in conflict with the presumption of conclusive proof of the legitimacy of the child, the DNA test report cannot be ignored. Hence, this Court relied on the DNA test report and held that the appellant husband would not be liable to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:53:43 pay maintenance. The said case would be of no assistance to the case of the respondent herein. This is because, in the said case, this Court was confronted with a situation in which DNA test report, in fact, was available and was in conflict with the presumption of conclusive proof of legitimacy of the child, under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. …” 10. In view of the above discussion and particular the position in Badwaik, we are of the considered view that no error could be pointed out by the appellant in the High Court's decision denying the grant of maintenance to her daughter. The appeal is bereft of merit and, therefore, dismissed.” 8. Having regard to the prima facie factual position emerging from the record, particularly the DNA report establishing that the appellant is not the biological father of the minor child, and in view of the law authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court in Nikhat Parveen alias Khusboo Khatoon (supra) that when a report of a DNA test conducted on the direction of a court, is available on record and is in conflict with the presumption of conclusive proof of the legitimacy of the child, the DNA test report cannot be ignored, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order, to the extent it directs payment of interim maintenance in favour of the minor son, cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be modified accordingly. 9. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 is modified to the limited extent that the direction awarding interim maintenance in favour of the minor son is hereby set aside. The remaining directions contained in the impugned order, including those relating to the grant of interim maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife, shall remain unaltered and continue to operate. 10. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:53:43 All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. 11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present appeal arising out of the impugned Order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending matrimonial proceedings before the Family Court, which shall be decided independently and uninfluenced by any observation contained in the present judgment. VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J. RENU BHATNAGAR, J. JULY 8, 2026/neha/kz/nc This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:53:43