In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the conflict between legal presumption of legitimacy and scientific evidence. The appellant sought maintenance for her child under the Domestic Violence Act, claiming the child was born during a valid marriage and thus entitled to maintenance. The respondent denied paternity, and a DNA test—conducted with consent—proved he was not the biological father. The Court held that while Section 112 of the Evidence Act creates a strong presumption of legitimacy, it is not absolute. Where conclusive scientific evidence like DNA testing clearly disproves paternity, such evidence will prevail over legal presumption. The Court relied on precedents like Nandlal Badwaik, affirming that truth established through science cannot be ignored. Accordingly, the Court denied maintenance for the child, stating that maintenance liability arises from a legal or biological relationship. However, it recognised the child’s vulnerability and directed state authorities to ensure welfare measures such as education and basic support. This judgment reinforces that modern courts prioritise scientific certainty while balancing concerns of dignity and child welfare.