The High Court of Uttarakhand has ruled that a husband who knowingly marries a woman with a child from a previous marriage and accepts the child into the matrimonial household cannot subsequently disown financial responsibility for that child on the ground that he is not the biological father. Single bench judge Justice Alok Mahra delivered the ruling while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by the wife and her children against a Family Court order, holding that voluntary assumption of family responsibility creates a binding obligation under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Background of the Case
The revisionists—the wife (revisionist no. 1), her son from a previous marriage (revisionist no. 2), and her minor daughter (revisionist no. 3)—challenged the judgment and order dated January 24, 2022, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Original Suit No. 77 of 2018.
In the original suit under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Family Court had partly allowed the maintenance application, awarding ₹28,000 per month to the wife and ₹6,000 per month to the minor daughter. However, the Family Court completely rejected the maintenance claim of the son solely on the ground that the husband (respondent no. 2) was not his biological father. Aggrieved by the inadequate quantum of maintenance and the rejection of the son’s claim, the revisionists approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the revisionists contended that the husband was fully aware at the time of their marriage in 2013 that the wife had a son from her previous marriage. With complete knowledge, the husband agreed to the marriage and accepted the boy as a member of the family. Having voluntarily undertaken the responsibility to maintain the family, he could not shirk his duty toward the child later. Furthermore, pointing to the husband’s salary slip for November 2025 showing a gross salary of ₹2,01,843 and a net salary of ₹1,06,654, counsel argued that after excluding non-permissible deductions, his effective monthly income exceeded ₹1,50,000, making the Family Court’s maintenance award wholly inadequate.
Conversely, counsel for the husband argued that the wife is independently employed, earning approximately ₹55,000 to ₹58,000 per month, and resides in a flat owned by the husband. It was submitted that she voluntarily withdrew from his company and that the financial responsibility for the minor daughter rests on both parents. Additionally, the husband highlighted that when the wife obtained a divorce from her former husband under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, she received ₹5,00,000 in settlement toward her stridhan and the maintenance of her son, which should preclude further claims against the present husband. Counsel nevertheless submitted that the husband was ready and willing to maintain the children.
Court’s Analysis
Examining the record, the High Court observed that it was undisputed that the husband entered the marriage in 2013 with full knowledge of the son’s existence and with the understanding that the child would reside in the matrimonial home.
Emphasizing the legal effect of this acceptance, the Court made key observations:
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.
Addressing the defense regarding the lack of biological relation, the Court 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.
Regarding the previous divorce settlement under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court rejected the husband’s contention, observing:
The settlement, if any, between revisionist no.1 and her former husband cannot, by itself, absolve respondent no.2 of the responsibility which he voluntarily assumed after entering into marriage with revisionist no.1 with full knowledge that she had a son from her previous marriage.
The rights and obligations arising from the subsequent matrimonial relationship cannot be defeated merely on the basis of an arrangement entered into between revisionist no.1 and her former husband.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Deepa Joshi Vs. Gaurav Joshi (2026 SCC OnLine SC 597), which reiterated that a husband’s maintenance obligation is primary and continuing to ensure his spouse lives with dignity, and that asset-creating deductions cannot diminish assessable income to defeat statutory duties. The Court also examined the affidavits of assets, income, and liabilities submitted by both parties pursuant to the Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another ((2021) 2 SCC 324), concluding that the husband had no substantial independent liability impacting his paying capacity.
Decision of the Court
Finding the maintenance amounts fixed by the Family Court to be on the lower side considering the husband’s income and circumstances, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision and modified the Family Court’s order dated January 24, 2022.
The Court awarded maintenance as follows:
- Maintenance for the wife (revisionist no. 1) was modified to ₹10,000 per month.
- Maintenance for the minor daughter (revisionist no. 3) was enhanced from ₹6,000 to ₹30,000 per month.
- The son (revisionist no. 2, born November 23, 2007) was held 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 Details:
Case Title: Rapti v. State Of Uttarakhand
Case No.: CRLR No. 100 of 2022
Bench: Justice Alok Mahra
Date: 20.08.2026
