In a recent case, a court witnessed a heated exchange after a DNA report confirmed that a man was not the biological father of a child. During the proceedings, the man's lawyer questioned whether illegitimate children have the right to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
The judge responded affirmatively, saying, “Yes, yes.” However, the man argued, “Why should I pay for someone else’s child? The woman who cheated and the man who fathered the child should be held responsible.”
The case has sparked debate around legal obligations, paternity fraud, and the interpretation of maintenance laws under Indian jurisprudence.
