Man must pay maintenance to stepson he accepted as family: Uttarakhand High Court

“Once respondent number 2 (husband), with full knowledge of the existence of revisionist number 2 (woman’s son), chose to marry revisionist number 1 (woman) 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 subsequent plea that the child is not his biological son, by itself, cannot constitute a justification for completely disowning the responsibility towards his maintenance,” the August 20 order read. 

The high court also pointed out that settlement, if any, between the woman and her former husband cannot, by itself, absolve the man’s responsibility which he voluntarily assumed after marrying her with full knowledge that she had a son from her previous marriage. 

Justice Alok Mahra pointed out that settlement, if any, between the woman and her former husband cannot absolve the man’s responsibility which he voluntarily assumed after marrying her.

“The rights and obligations arising from the subsequent matrimonial relationship cannot be defeated merely on the basis of an arrangement entered into between revisionist number 1 (wife) and her former husband,” it added. 

Arguments 

Representing the wife, advocate Akshay Pradhan argued that at the time of marriage in 2013, the man was fully aware that she had a son from her previous marriage. It was submitted that, with full knowledge, the man agreed to marry the woman and also accepted the child as a member of the family.

It was argued that, having voluntarily undertaken the responsibility of maintaining the family, the man cannot, at this stage, seek to avoid his responsibility towards the child merely on the ground that he is not his biological father. The lawyer also pointed out that in November, 2025, the man’s gross salary was Rs 2 lakh, whereas his net salary, after deductions, was shown as Rs 1.06 lakh. 

On the contrary, advocate Prabha Naithani, representing the man, argued that when the estranged wife obtained divorce from her earlier husband, an amount of Rs 5 lakh was received pursuant to the settlement towards her stridhan and the maintenance of the son. On this basis, it was claimed that the wife was not entitled to claim any further maintenance from the husband. 

It was added that the estranged wife herself is employed and is earning approximately Rs 55,000 to Rs 58,000 per month. It was argued that she has sufficient independent income to maintain herself as well as the children. 

It was further submitted that the woman is residing in a flat owned by the man and that she has, of her own volition, withdrawn from his company. It was further submitted that the responsibility of maintaining the girl child rests upon both the parents and, therefore, the entire burden cannot be fastened upon him. 

‘Consciously accepted son in this marriage’

The high court noted that at the time of marriage in 2013, the husband was fully aware that the woman had a son from her previous marriage and was done with the understanding that the son would live with the family only. 

It held that the subsequent plea that the child is not his biological son, by itself, cannot constitute a justification for completely disowning the responsibility towards his maintenance. The high court held that the family court, therefore, erred in declining maintenance to teh child solely on the ground that the man is not his biological father. 

The high court also pointed out that having “consciously” accepted the matrimonial relationship with full knowledge of the existing circumstances, the husband cannot now seek to resile from the responsibility towards the maintenance of the child solely by relying upon the absence of a biological relationship.

Referring to the affidavits submitted by the husband, the court noted that they indicated that he has no substantial independent liability which would materially affect his capacity to pay maintenance. The court found it just and appropriate to suitably enhance the amount of maintenance and to grant maintenance to the son as well. 

Accordingly, the court modified the family court’s order to the extent that the maintenance payable to the wife is enhanced from Rs 8,000 to Rs 10,000 per month and the maintenance payable to the minor daughter is enhanced from Rs 6,000 to Rs 30,000 per month.

The court noted that the man’s counsel had submitted that he was ready to maintain the son and, considering that the son was born in 2007, held that he was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs 10,000 per month from the date of filing of the maintenance application until he attains the age of majority.