Click the Play button to listen to article

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a man cannot later “disown” the responsibility of maintaining his wife's child from a previous marriage, after having 'knowingly' accepted the child as part of the matrimonial household .

“Having consciously accepted the matrimonial relationship with full knowledge of the existing circumstances,” Justice Alok Mahra held, the man “cannot now seek to resile from the responsibility towards the maintenance” of the child. 

Owing to the above holding, the court allowed a criminal revision against the Family Court, Haridwar's order where it had granted Rs8,000 and 6,000 as maintainace to the wife and daughter respectively but had denied the son maintenance on the ground that the man was not his biological father. Taking note of the man's financial status, the Court enhanced the maintenance toward the wife and daughter and directed to pay the son a maintainace of Rs10,000 till he attained majority.

The marriage between the revisionist-wife and the respondent was solemnised in 2013. The High Court noted that the respondent was fully aware at the time of marriage that the wife had a son from her previous marriage. The record also showed that the marriage was entered into with the understanding that the son would reside with the couple. 

Counsel for the revisionists submitted that the respondent had voluntarily undertaken responsibility towards the son after marrying the revisionist-wife with full knowledge of his existence. It was therefore argued that he could not subsequently avoid that responsibility merely by asserting that the child was not his biological son. 

The revisionists also relied on the respondent's November 2025 salary slip, which showed a gross salary of ₹2,01,843 and a net salary of ₹1,06,654 after deductions. It was argued that, after excluding deductions which ought not to be considered for determining his income, his effective monthly income was more than ₹1.50 lakh and the maintenance awarded by the Family Court therefore deserved enhancement. 

Opposing the revision, counsel for the respondent submitted that the wife was herself employed and earned approximately ₹55,000 to ₹58,000 per month. It was also submitted that she was residing in a flat owned by the respondent and had withdrawn from his company of her own volition. With regard to the daughter, it was argued that the responsibility of maintaining a minor child rested upon both parents. 

The respondent further relied upon a ₹5 lakh settlement received by the wife from her former husband towards her stridhan and the maintenance of the son.

The High Court held that the respondent's knowledge of the son's existence at the time of marriage was significant.

“It is also borne out from the record that the marriage was solemnised with the aforesaid knowledge and understanding that revisionist no.2 (son) would reside with revisionist no.1. In such circumstances, once respondent no.2, with full knowledge of the existence of revisionist no.2, chose to marry revisionist no.1 and accepted the child as part of the matrimonial household, he cannot subsequently seek to evade the responsibility which he had voluntarily undertaken towards the child, particularly when the child was residing with the parties as a member of the family.

The subsequent plea that revisionist no.2 is not his biological son, by itself, cannot constitute a justification for completely disowning the responsibility towards his maintenance. Learned Judge, Family Court, therefore, erred in declining maintenance to revisionist no.2 solely on the ground that respondent no.2 is not his biological father”.

The Court also rejected the argument based on the ₹5 lakh settlement between the wife and her former husband. “The settlement, if any, between revisionist no.1 and her former husband cannot, by itself, absolve respondent no.2 of the responsibility which he voluntarily assumed after entering into marriage with revisionist no.1 with full knowledge that she had a son from her previous marriage. The rights and obligations arising from the subsequent matrimonial relationship cannot be defeated merely on the basis of an arrangement entered into between revisionist no.1 and her former husband”, the Court held.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, the High Court noted that a husband's obligation to maintain his spouse is a primary and continuing obligation, and that deductions towards repayments or liabilities which create or enhance assets cannot be permitted to substantially diminish his assessable income where they take precedence over the statutory obligation to maintain his spouse. 

The Court also considered the affidavits relating to assets, income and liabilities filed by both sides pursuant to the directions in Rajnesh v. Neha. It found that the respondent had no substantial independent liability materially affecting his capacity to pay maintenance. His disclosed income and the material on record indicated that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court to the wife and daughter was on the lower side. 

Thus, allowing the criminal revision, the High Court modified the Family Court's order.

The maintenance payable to the wife was enhanced from ₹8,000 to ₹10,000 per month, while that payable to the minor daughter was enhanced from ₹6,000 to ₹30,000 per month. The Court also directed that the son, shall receive ₹10,000 per month from the date of filing of the maintenance application until he attains majority. 

Case: Rapti v. State of Uttarakhand & Another

Case no: CRLR/100/2022

Judge: Justice Alok Mahra

Click Here To Read/Download Order


Tags: