Back
Rules Man Cannot Deny Maintenance to Wife's Child From Previous Marriage
In a significant ruling on , the has held that a man who knowingly marries a woman with a child from a previous marriage cannot later refuse to maintain that child simply because he is not the . Justice Alok Mahra, presiding over a , set aside a Family Court order that had denied maintenance to the wife's son on that very ground.
The Case Background
The -wife, Rapti, married the respondent in . At the time of marriage, the respondent was fully aware that she had a son from her earlier marriage. The marriage was solemnised with the understanding that the child would live with the couple. However, after marital discord, the wife filed a under .
The partially allowed the application, granting ₹8,000 per month to the wife and ₹6,000 per month to the minor daughter, but rejected the son's claim solely on the ground that the respondent was not his . Aggrieved, the wife and her children approached the High Court.
Arguments and Counter-Arguments
The revisionists contended that the respondent had voluntarily accepted the son as part of the family and could not now evade his responsibility. They also pointed to the respondent's salary slip from , showing a gross salary of ₹2,01,843 and a net salary of ₹1,06,654, arguing that after excluding certain deductions, his effective monthly income exceeded ₹1,50,000. The maintenance awarded was therefore inadequate and deserved enhancement.
The respondent countered that the wife was employed, earning ₹55,000–₹58,000 per month, and was living in a flat owned by him. He also argued that a ₹5 lakh settlement received by the wife from her former husband for and the son's maintenance should absolve him of any further obligation.
Court's Legal Analysis
Justice Mahra observed that the respondent's knowledge of the son's existence at the time of marriage was crucial. The court noted:
"Once respondent no.2, with full knowledge of the existence of no.2, chose to marry no.1 and accepted the child as part of the , 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 High Court rejected the argument based on the settlement between the wife and her former husband, holding that it could not defeat the obligations arising from the subsequent matrimonial relationship.
Relying on the 's decision in , the court reiterated that a husband's obligation to maintain his spouse is . The court also noted, following the directions in , that deductions creating or enhancing assets cannot diminish the for maintenance purposes.
Key Observations
The court emphasised:
"The subsequent plea that no.2 is not his biological son, by itself, cannot constitute a justification for completely disowning the responsibility towards his maintenance."
It also dismissed the settlement argument, stating:
"The rights and obligations arising from the subsequent matrimonial relationship cannot be defeated merely on the basis of an arrangement entered into between no.1 and her former husband."
The Final Decision
Allowing the , the High Court modified the Family Court order as follows:
- Maintenance for the wife was enhanced from ₹8,000 to ₹10,000 per month .
- Maintenance for the minor daughter was increased from ₹6,000 to ₹30,000 per month .
- The son was granted maintenance of ₹10,000 per month from the date of filing the application until he attains majority (his date of birth being ).
The ruling reinforces the principle that a person who cannot later disown it on biological grounds, and that maintenance must reflect the actual financial capacity of the .
