Man Who Accepted Wife’s Son Into Matrimonial Home Cannot Later Disown Maintenance Responsibility: Uttarakhand High Court

A Bench of Justice Alok Mahra held, “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 allowed a Criminal Revision and modified the order of the Family Court, Haridwar, which had partly allowed a maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Family Court had awarded maintenance of ₹8,000 per month to the wife and ₹6,000 per month to the minor daughter, while rejecting the claim of the son on the ground that the respondent was not his biological father.

The High Court noted that, at the time of solemnization of the marriage in 2013, the respondent was fully aware that the revisionist wife had a son from her previous marriage. The marriage was solemnized with the aforesaid knowledge and understanding that the son would reside with the wife.

“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,” the Court held.

The High Court held that the Family Court had erred in declining maintenance to the son solely on the ground that the respondent was not his biological father.

The Court also considered the respondent’s salary. The revisionists had drawn attention to his salary slip for November 2025, which showed a gross salary of ₹2,01,843 and a net salary of ₹1,06,654 after deductions.

Advocate Akshay Pradhan appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate J.P. Kandpal appeared for the respondent.

It was submitted that only legitimate and permissible deductions could be taken into consideration and that, after excluding deductions which were not required to be taken into account, his effective monthly income would be more than ₹1,50,000.

The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the wife was herself employed and earning approximately ₹55,000 to ₹58,000 per month and had sufficient independent income to maintain herself and the children.

The Court also considered the affidavits relating to assets, income and liabilities filed by both sides pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another.

A perusal of the affidavits indicated that the respondent had no substantial independent liability which would materially affect his capacity to pay maintenance.

The Court held that the income disclosed by the respondent, coupled with the material available on record, indicated that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court in favour of the wife and minor daughter was on the lower side.

The High Court enhanced the maintenance payable to the wife from ₹8,000 to ₹10,000 per month.

The maintenance payable to the minor daughter was enhanced from ₹6,000 to ₹30,000 per month.

The Court also directed that the son, whose date of birth is November 23, 2007, shall be entitled to ₹10,000 per month from the date of filing of the application till he attains the age of majority.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepa Joshi Vs. Gaurav Joshi, which reiterated that the obligation of a husband to maintain his spouse is a primary and continuing obligation and must be discharged in a manner ensuring that the wife is able to live with dignity and in a standard of living reasonably commensurate with that enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage.

Cause Title: Rapti v. State Of Uttarakhand, [2026:UHC:7531]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Akshay Pradhan

Respondent: Advocates J.P. Kandpal, Prabha Naithani