The Delhi High Court has recently confirmed the trial court's decisions to reject a maintenance claim for a child born one month after the marriage of the parents. The high court considered a DNA report that indicated that the husband of the petitioner is not the biological father of the child.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated, "Considering the presence of a DNA report on record, the respondent (husband) cannot be deemed responsible for providing maintenance to the child, despite the child being born while the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was still in effect."

The court also took into account the argument put forth by the respondent's legal representative, which claimed that the respondent was underage at the time of the marriage, rendering the marriage invalid.

It was also contended that the petitioner, the wife, had hidden the information regarding her income from the court. The high court pointed out that during the stage of granting interim maintenance, the court's focus is primarily on forming an initial assessment based on the facts presented. The court also stressed that the criteria and considerations for determining the eligibility for maintenance have been firmly established in this matter.

The high court recognized that the petitioner had previous employment as a domestic help but observed that there was no evidence on record to indicate that she is presently earning or employed anywhere. Justice Sharma highlighted that the trial court made a mistake by refusing maintenance to the petitioner on the grounds that she is presently unemployed and not earning any income.

As a result, the high court ordered that the case should be sent back to the appropriate court for a fresh evaluation of the amount of maintenance to be provided to the petitioner, considering the evidence presented by both parties.

The petitioner filed a petition with the aim of overturning the judgment issued by the District and Sessions Judge of the South East District in Saket, Delhi, regarding a criminal appeal. The sessions court had affirmed the judgment that was originally made by the Metropolitan Magistrate of the Saket Court.

The petitioner claimed that while she was working as a domestic help at the respondent's residence, the respondent subjected her to sexual advances and engaged in sexual intercourse with her regularly, promising to marry her. She further alleged that the respondent forced her to have sexual relations with two of his friends.

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on March 2, 2016, and a daughter was born on April 1, 2016, which was less than one month after the marriage ceremony.

The petitioner submitted a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance. As part of the proceedings, a DNA test was conducted to establish the paternity of the child. However, the magistrate denied the maintenance claim, citing income concealment, and this decision was later upheld by the sessions court.

The petitioner's legal counsel argued that because the child was born while the marriage was still in effect, the legal presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act should favor the petitioner. They requested that maintenance be awarded not only to the petitioner but also to the child, without giving consideration to the results of the DNA test.

The petitioner also mentioned that they've experienced societal discrimination because of the DNA test results, and their parents are not providing them with proper care.