Stepfather Cannot Disown Maintenance Responsibility After Accepting Wife's Son: Uttarakhand HC

Nainital: The Uttarakhand High Court has enhanced the maintenance awarded to a woman and her two children and held that a husband who married with full knowledge that his wife had a son from an earlier marriage cannot later disown responsibility towards that child merely because he is “not his biological father.”

Justice Alok Mahra was examining a challenge to a Family Court, Haridwar order that had granted maintenance to the wife and minor daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but had rejected the son's claim on the ground that respondent no. 2 was not his biological father.

The Court noted that respondent no. 2 had married revisionist no. 1 in 2013 with full knowledge that she had a son from her previous marriage, and had “accepted the child as part of the matrimonial household.” It held that having voluntarily undertaken this responsibility, he “cannot subsequently seek to evade the responsibility” towards the child.

The Court held that the subsequent plea of absence of biological parentage, by itself, “cannot constitute a justification for completely disowning the responsibility towards his maintenance,” and found that the Family Court had erred in declining maintenance to the son solely on that ground.

Rejecting the contention that a prior monetary settlement received by the wife from her earlier husband barred any further claim, the Court held that such a settlement “cannot, by itself, absolve respondent no. 2 of the responsibility which he voluntarily assumed” upon marrying with knowledge of the child.

Relying on Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, the Court reiterated that a husband's obligation to maintain his spouse is “a primary and continuing obligation” requiring that she be able to live with dignity at a standard comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage, and that deductions creating or enhancing assets cannot be allowed to diminish his assessable income for this purpose.

Taking into account the affidavits of assets, income and liabilities filed pursuant to Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court found that the maintenance earlier awarded was “on the lower side,” and enhanced the wife's maintenance from ₹8,000 to ₹10,000 per month and the minor daughter's from ₹6,000 to ₹30,000 per month, while also granting the son maintenance of ₹10,000 per month from the date of filing of the application until he attains majority.

Appearances: Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Advocate, appeared for the revisionists. Mr. J.P. Kandpal, Brief Holder, appeared for the State of Uttarakhand. Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Advocate, appeared for respondent no. 2.

Case Title: R & Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand