Person Solemnizing Marriage With A Person Who Already Has A Child Cannot Later Say That The Child Is Not His Or Her Responsibility: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has observed that when a person solemnizes marriage with a person who already has a child, said person shall be presumed to have undertaken the responsibility of the child and also cannot later be permitted to contend that the child is not his/her responsibility.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan made this observation while dealing with a plea filed by the husband against the Order of the Family Court which had dismissed his application seeking modification of the final judgment in a matrimonial dispute case.
The husband had filed a petition seeking divorce from respondent-wife on the ground of desertion. The said petition came to be allowed.
With regard to permanent alimony, the appellant was directed to pay a sum of ₹2,500 to each of the children for first five years and, thereafter, ₹3,500 for another five years and, thereafter, ₹5,000 each till both the children got married or became financially independent.
The elder daughter is the daughter of the respondent from her first marriage. The younger daughter is the daughter of the parties born out of this wedlock.
Admittedly, the appellant has been paying the maintenance. The application under Section 25(2) of the Act was filed contending that the appellant-husband has got to know that the elder daughter has been shown as a dependent whereas in the Family Details, the daughter is shown as the daughter of the late first husband of the respondent as a dependent family member.
The said application was dismissed by the Family Court holding that there is no change in circumstances.
Advocate Iqbal Shamsi appeared for the appellant.
The High Court observed that it is not in dispute that the appellant-husband was aware of the first daughter of the respondent-wife from the first marriage at the time when he solemnized the marriage with the respondent.
“When a person solemnizes a marriage with a person who already has a child, said person shall be presumed to have undertaken the responsibility of the child and also cannot later be permitted to contend that the child is not his/her responsibility.”, the Court held.
The Court further noted that if the Respondent-wife had known that the appellant was not going to maintain her first daughter, she would not even have married him.
“…we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Family Court that there is no change in the circumstances entitling the appellant for modification of the order. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed.”, the Court held.
Cause Title- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 62/2023 (Neutral Citation Number- 2023/DHC/001629)