THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3652 of 2025

ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed, being aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.2025 passed in I.A. No. 357 of 2023 in H.M.O.P. No. 32 of 2023 by the learned II Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Huzurabad.

2. Heard Dr. V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent despite due notice.

The record has been carefully perused.

3. The relavent facts in breif are that, the petitioner herein was the respondent before the trial court. The respondent (wife) filed an interlocutory application seeking interim maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month for herself and her minor daughter, along with Rs.20,000 towards litigation expenses. Upon consideration of the material on record, the trial court allowed the application partly, awarding Rs.4,000 per month as maintenance for the respondent and her daughter, and Rs.5,000 towards legal expenses. Aggrieved by the inclusion of the minor daughter within the purview of this maintenance order, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the minor daughter of the respondent was born through her first marriage, and that the petitioner, being merely a stepfather, bears no legal liability to maintain her. He relies on the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 636, wherein it was held that the term “child” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not encompass a stepchild, and thus a stepfather cannot be fastened with any legal obligation to provide maintenance to such a child.

4.2 Counsel further cites decisions of various High Courts, including the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Pradeep Jain v. Smt. Manjulata Jain Modi and Mohit Gupta v. Regional Passport Office, W.P. (C) No. 9156 of 2015, reiterating that the stepfather does not stand on the same legal footing as a biological or adoptive father. Hence, the impugned order to the extent it directs maintenance payment for the minor daughter is unsustainable in law.

4.3 It is further submitted that the petitioner does not dispute the quantum of Rs.4,000 per month insofar as it relates to the respondent (wife), but only disputes the liability to maintain the minor daughter.

5. I have carfully considered the submissions and the materials plased on record.

6. By the pleadings and materials on the record, it is evident that the respondent had a minor daughter born from her first wedlock, prior to her marriage with the petitioner. The trial court, while acknowledging this fact, nevertheless directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to both the respondent and the child.

7. The legal issue that arises for consideration is whether a stepfather bears any statutory obligation under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

to maintain the stepchild of his wife from a previous marriage.

8. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is a social justice measure intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution. However, its scope is confined to specific classes of persons including wife, legitimate or illegitimate minor child, legitimate or illegitimate child (major but disabled), and parents. The statutory provision does not extend the obligation of maintenance to stepchildren, unless there exists adoption or an express legal undertaking to that effect.

9. The Supreme Court in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya (supra)

categorically held that:

“A child born out of a void or voidable marriage or to a woman living in adultery does not confer upon the stepfather any obligation of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as the expression ‘his legitimate or illegitimate child’ refers only to a child of the man himself.”

The Court further clarified that a stepfather cannot be equated with a biological father, and any obligation towards the child of the spouse arises only through adoption or voluntary assumption of responsibility.

10.