Husband Cannot Disown Responsibility Towards Wife's Son After Accepting Him Into Family: Uttarakhand HC [Read Order]

Nainital: The High Court of Uttarakhand has allowed a criminal revision and enhanced the maintenance awarded to a wife and her two children, holding that a husband who marries a woman with full knowledge that she has a son from her earlier marriage, and who accepts that child into the matrimonial household, cannot subsequently disown his responsibility to maintain the child merely on the ground that he is not the biological father.

Justice Alok Mahra was hearing a criminal revision assailing the judgment and order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the Family Court, Haridwar in Original Suit No.77 of 2018, whereby an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been partly allowed, granting maintenance of ₹8,000/- per month to the wife and ₹6,000/- per month to the minor daughter, while rejecting the claim of the wife's son on the ground that the husband was not his biological father.

Counsel for the revisionists submitted that the Family Court had failed to consider the husband's actual income while fixing maintenance, and that although his gross salary for November 2025 was shown as ₹2,01,843/- with a net salary of ₹1,06,654/- after deductions, only legitimate and permissible deductions ought to have been considered, which would place his effective monthly income above ₹1,50,000/-. It was further submitted that, since the husband had married the wife in 2013 with full knowledge that she had a son from her previous marriage, and had accepted the child as a member of the family, he could not now avoid his responsibility towards the child merely because he was not the biological father.

Counsel for the husband, in reply, submitted that the wife was herself earning approximately ₹55,000/- to ₹58,000/- per month and had sufficient independent income to maintain herself and the children, that she resided in a flat owned by the husband and had voluntarily withdrawn from his company, and that the burden of maintaining the minor daughter could not be fastened entirely upon him. It was also submitted that the wife had received ₹5,00,000/- towards her stridhan and the son's maintenance at the time of her divorce from her former husband, and was therefore not entitled to claim further maintenance for the son though counsel fairly acknowledged that the husband was, in any event, ready and willing to maintain the son.

Rejecting the husband's objections, the Court held that it was undisputed that he had married the wife in 2013 with full knowledge of the existence of her son, and that the marriage was solemnised on the understanding that the child would reside with them. Having consciously accepted the child as part of the matrimonial household, the Court held, the husband could not subsequently resile from the responsibility he had voluntarily undertaken, and the mere absence of a biological relationship could not justify completely disowning that responsibility. The Court further held that a settlement between the wife and her former husband could not, by itself, absolve the husband of the obligation he had voluntarily assumed upon marriage, and that rights and obligations arising from the subsequent matrimonial relationship could not be defeated by an arrangement to which he was not a party.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 597, the Court reiterated that a husband's obligation to maintain his spouse is a “primary and continuing obligation,” which must be discharged in a manner ensuring that the wife is able to live with dignity, and that deductions towards repayments or liabilities which create or enhance assets cannot be permitted to substantially diminish a husband's assessable income, since such repayments cannot take precedence over his statutory obligation to maintain his spouse.

Taking into account the asset, income and liability affidavits filed by both sides pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court found that the husband had no substantial independent liability materially affecting his capacity to pay maintenance, and that the amount awarded by the Family Court to the wife and minor daughter was on the lower side having regard to his disclosed income.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal revision and modified the impugned order, enhancing the maintenance payable to the wife from ₹8,000/- to ₹10,000/- per month and to the minor daughter from ₹6,000/- to ₹30,000/- per month, noting that counsel for the husband had submitted that he was ready to maintain the daughter at the enhanced rate. 

The Court further held that, since the son was born on 23.11.2007, he would also be entitled to maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application until he attains the age of majority.

Case Title: Rapti and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, CRLR/100/2022

[Read Order]