उत्ताखंड उच्च न्यायालय: पत्नी के पूर्व विवाह के बेटे को दत्तक लेकर भी पति नहीं टाल सकते रखरखाव ज़िम्मेदारी

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a man who knowingly marries a woman with a child from her previous marriage and accepts the child as a member of the matrimonial household cannot subsequently seek to completely disown responsibility towards the childâs maintenance merely because he is not the childâs biological father.

Justice Alok Mahra made the observation while allowing a criminal revision challenging an order of the Family Court, Haridwar, which had granted maintenance to the wife and minor daughter but rejected the sonâs claim under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the husband was not his biological father.

The High Court not only directed maintenance for the son but also enhanced the amounts payable to the wife and daughter.

Family Court Granted Maintenance To Wife And Daughter, Rejected Sonâs ClaimThe revision arose from an order dated 24.01.2022, passed by the Family Court, Haridwar in Original Suit No. 77 of 2018. The Family Court had awarded Rs 8,000 per month to the wife and Rs 6,000 per month to the minor daughter. However, the claim of the son, who was born from the wifeâs previous marriage, was rejected on the ground that the respondent was not his biological father.

Challenging the order, the revisionists contended that the husband was fully aware at the time of his marriage in 2013 that the wife had a son from her previous marriage. It was argued that despite this knowledge, he voluntarily married the wife and accepted the son as a member of the family. Having consciously undertaken the responsibility towards the child, the husband could not subsequently avoid that responsibility merely by relying on the absence of a biological relationship.

Husband Disputed Maintenance Claim And Relied On Wifeâs IncomeThe husband opposed the revision and submitted that the wife was herself employed and earning approximately Rs 55,000 to Rs 58,000 per month. It was also submitted that she was residing in a flat owned by him and had voluntarily withdrawn from his company.

With regard to the minor daughter, it was argued that her maintenance was the responsibility of both parents and that the entire financial burden could not be placed upon the husband. The husband further relied upon a settlement between the wife and her former husband, under which Rs 5 lakh had allegedly been received towards her stridhan and the maintenance of the son.

Court Says Husband Cannot Resile From Responsibility Knowingly AssumedThe High Court found that it was undisputed that the husband was aware, at the time of the 2013 marriage, that the wife had a son from her previous marriage.

The Court noted that the marriage was solemnised with the understanding that the son would reside with the wife and that he was accepted as a member of the matrimonial household. In these circumstances, the Court held that the husband could not subsequently seek to evade the responsibility he had voluntarily undertaken towards the child.

The Court observed:

âThe 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.âThe Court consequently held that the Family Court had erred in declining maintenance to the son solely because the husband was not his biological father.

Settlement With Former Husband Did Not Extinguish Subsequent ObligationThe husband had also argued that the wife had already received Rs 5 lakh pursuant to a settlement with her former husband towards stridhan and maintenance of the son.

The High Court rejected the submission. It held that any settlement between the wife and her former husband could not, by itself, absolve the present husband of the responsibility he had voluntarily assumed after marrying her with full knowledge that she had a son from an earlier marriage.

The Court emphasised that the rights and obligations arising from the subsequent matrimonial relationship could not be defeated merely on the basis of an arrangement between the wife and her former husband.

The High Court also relied upon the

Supreme Courtâs decision in

Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 597.

The Supreme Court had reiterated that the obligation of a husband to maintain his spouse is a primary and continuing obligation and must be discharged in a manner enabling the wife to live with dignity and with a standard of living reasonably commensurate with that enjoyed during the marriage.

The Supreme Court had further held that while determining a husbandâs actual earning capacity for maintenance purposes, deductions towards repayments or liabilities which result in the creation or enhancement of assets cannot be permitted to substantially diminish the assessable income, as such repayments cannot take precedence over the statutory obligation to maintain the spouse.

The High Court also considered the affidavits relating to assets, income and liabilities filed by both sides pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in

Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. The record showed that the husband had no substantial independent liability which would materially affect his capacity to pay maintenance.

The Court also took note of his disclosed income and the financial circumstances of the parties. At the same time, the Court considered the wifeâs independent income, the needs of the parties and the overall financial circumstances while determining the appropriate amounts of maintenance.

The Court concluded that the amounts awarded by the Family Court to the wife and minor daughter were on the lower side.

Wifeâs Maintenance Increased To Rs 10,000; Daughter Gets Rs 30,000The High Court accordingly modified the Family Courtâs order. The maintenance payable to the wife was enhanced from Rs 8,000 to Rs 10,000 per month. The maintenance payable to the minor daughter was substantially enhanced from Rs 6,000 to Rs 30,000 per month.

The Court also directed that the son, whose date of birth was November 23, 2007, would be entitled to Rs 10,000 per month from the date of filing of the maintenance application until he attained the age of majority.

The enhancement in respect of the daughter was also recorded in the context of the husbandâs submission that he was ready to maintain her.

Allowing the criminal revision, the High Court modified the Family Courtâs order to the extent of enhancing the maintenance payable to the wife and daughter and granting maintenance to the son.

CRLR/100/2022

Rapti v. State of Uttarakhand & Another

Date of Decision: 20.08.2026

Appearance:Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Advocate for the revisionists. Mr. J.P. Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the respondent no.2.(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)

Powered by Nyaya 247 News