Man Cannot Deny Maintenance To Step-Son After Knowingly Marrying Woman With A Child: Uttarakhand HC
The High Court held that a man who knowingly married a woman with a son from her previous marriage and accepted the child as part of the family cannot later evade maintenance responsibility merely because he is not the child’s biological father.
POCSO Case: Uttarakhand HC Denies Bail, Says No Routine Adjournments Once Trial Begins
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a man who knowingly marries a woman with a child from her previous marriage cannot subsequently deny responsibility for the child's maintenance merely on the ground that he is not his biological father.
Justice Alok Mahra allowed a criminal revision and held that the subsequent plea of absence of a biological relationship could not, by itself, justify completely disowning responsibility towards the child.
The case arose from a Family Court order dated January 24, 2022, which had awarded maintenance of ₹8,000 per month to the wife and ₹6,000 per month to the minor daughter under Section 125 CrPC.
The maintenance claim of the wife's son from the first marriage was rejected on the ground that the respondent was not his biological father.
Challenging the order, the wife and her son moved the High Court submitting that the respondent-husband had married the revisionist in 2013 with full knowledge that she had a son from her previous marriage.
The Court further found that the marriage was solemnised with the understanding that the child would reside with his mother and that, after the marriage, the respondent accepted him as a member of the matrimonial household.
"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" the Court said.
The High Court consequently found that the Family Court had erred in declining maintenance to the son solely because the respondent was not his biological father.
The respondent-husband had also argued that the child's mother had received ₹5 lakh pursuant to a settlement with her former husband at the time of obtaining divorce, towards her stridhan and the maintenance of the child.
The High Court, however, held that any settlement between the woman and her former husband could not, by itself, absolve the respondent of the responsibility he had voluntarily assumed after marrying her 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 bench said.
The revisionist-wife had pointed out that the respondent's November 2025 salary slip showed a gross salary of ₹2,01,843 and a net salary of ₹1,06,654 after deductions. It was contended that, after excluding deductions which ought not to be considered for determining his actual income, his effective monthly income exceeded ₹1.50 lakh.
On the facts before it, the High Court found that the respondent-husbnad had no substantial independent liability materially affecting his capacity to pay maintenance and that the amounts awarded by the Family Court were on the lower side.
Therefore, the maintenance payable to the wife was enhanced from ₹8,000 to ₹10,000 per month, while the maintenance payable to the minor daughter was enhanced substantially from ₹6,000 to ₹30,000 per month.
The Court also directed that the wife's son, whose date of birth is November 23, 2007, would be entitled to ₹10,000 per month from the date of filing of the maintenance application until he attains majority.
The criminal revision was accordingly allowed.
Case Title : Rapti v State of Uttarakhand