The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a husband who knowingly married a woman with a son from her previous marriage and accepted the child as part of the matrimonial household could not later avoid maintenance responsibility solely because he was not the child’s biological father.
Justice Alok Mahra allowed the criminal revision and modified a January 24, 2022 order of the Family Court, Haridwar. The High Court also enhanced the maintenance awarded to the wife and minor daughter after considering the parties’ income, financial circumstances and material on record.
The couple married in 2013. At that time, the husband was aware that the wife had a son from her previous marriage. According to the revisionists, he nevertheless married her and accepted the boy as a member of the family. The Family Court had awarded ₹8,000 per month to the wife and ₹6,000 to the minor daughter, but rejected the son’s maintenance claim because the husband was not his biological father.
Before the High Court, the revisionists also sought enhancement of maintenance. They relied on the husband’s November 2025 salary slip showing a gross monthly salary of ₹2,01,843 and a net salary of ₹1,06,654 after deductions. The husband’s side argued that the wife was employed and earning approximately ₹55,000 to ₹58,000 per month and had sufficient independent income.
The High Court found it significant that the husband knew about the son before the marriage and nevertheless permitted him to live in the matrimonial household as a member of the family.
The Court observed:
“It is also borne out from the record that the marriage was solemnized with the aforesaid knowledge and understanding that revisionist no.2 would reside with revisionist no.1. 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, particularly when the child was residing with the parties as a member of the family.
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 husband’s side also referred to a ₹5 lakh settlement connected with the wife’s earlier divorce. The Court held that such an arrangement with her former husband could not, by itself, absolve the present husband of the responsibility he had voluntarily assumed after entering the marriage with knowledge of the child.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, the High Court further noted that maintenance must enable a wife to live with dignity and that deductions connected with asset-creating repayments cannot be allowed to substantially reduce assessable income ahead of the statutory maintenance obligation.
After examining the income and asset affidavits filed by both sides, the Court found the maintenance earlier awarded to the wife and daughter to be on the lower side.
The High Court allowed the revision and enhanced the wife’s maintenance from ₹8,000 to ₹10,000 per month and the minor daughter’s maintenance from ₹6,000 to ₹30,000 per month. It further directed that the son receive ₹10,000 per month from the date of filing of the maintenance application until he attained majority.
Case Title: Rapti v. State of Uttarakhand
Case Number: CRLR/100/2022
