Stepfather Cannot Disown Maintenance of Wife's Child After Knowingly Accepting Him

Source: Uttarakhand High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Alok Mahra of the Uttarakhand High Court, in Rapti v. State of Uttarakhand & Another (2026), held that a man who knowingly accepts his wife's child from a previous marriage as part of the matrimonial household cannot later disown the responsibility of maintaining that child merely because he is not the biological father. The Court also enhanced the maintenance awarded to the wife and the minor daughter. 

What was the Background of Rapti v. State of Uttarakhand & Another (2026) Case? 

• The marriage between the revisionist-wife and the respondent was solemnised in 2013. At the time of marriage, the respondent was fully aware that the wife had a son from her previous marriage, and the marriage was entered into on the understanding that the son would reside with the couple. 
• The wife, the son and the daughter born of the marriage sought maintenance before the Family Court, Haridwar. The Family Court granted ₹8,000 per month to the wife and ₹6,000 per month to the daughter, but denied maintenance to the son on the ground that the respondent was not his biological father. 
• Aggrieved, the wife and children filed a criminal revision before the Uttarakhand High Court, challenging both the denial of maintenance to the son and the adequacy of the amounts awarded. 
• The revisionists contended that the respondent had voluntarily undertaken responsibility towards the son by marrying the wife with full knowledge of the child's existence.  
• They also relied on the respondent's November 2025 salary slip, which showed a gross salary of ₹2,01,843 and a net salary of ₹1,06,654, and argued that his effective monthly income, after excluding impermissible deductions, exceeded ₹1.50 lakh. 

The respondent opposed the revision, submitting that: 

• The wife was employed and earned approximately ₹55,000 to ₹58,000 per month. 
• She was residing in a flat owned by him and had withdrawn from his company of her own volition. 
• The responsibility of maintaining the minor daughter rested on both parents. 
• The wife had received a ₹5 lakh settlement from her former husband towards her stridhan and the maintenance of the son. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the Respondent's Knowledge and Acceptance of the Son: 

• The Court held that the respondent's knowledge of the son's existence at the time of marriage was significant.  
• It noted that the marriage was solemnised with the understanding that the son would reside with the wife. 
• It held that once the respondent, with full knowledge, chose to marry the wife 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." 

On the Plea of Not Being the Biological Father: 

• The Court held that the plea that the son was not the respondent's biological child "by itself, cannot constitute a justification for completely disowning the responsibility towards his maintenance." 
• It concluded that the Family Court had erred in declining maintenance to the son solely on this ground. 

On the ₹5 Lakh Settlement with the Former Husband: 

• The Court rejected the argument that the settlement between the wife and her former husband discharged the respondent's liability.  
• It held that such a settlement cannot absolve the respondent of a responsibility he voluntarily assumed after marriage. 
• It further observed that "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." 

On Reliance on Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi: 

• Relying on this Supreme Court decision, the Court noted that a husband's obligation to maintain his spouse is a primary and continuing obligation. 
• Deductions towards repayments or liabilities that create or enhance assets cannot be permitted to substantially diminish his assessable income where they would take precedence over the statutory obligation of maintenance. 

On Reliance on Rajnesh v. Neha: 

• The Court considered the affidavits of assets, income and liabilities filed by both parties pursuant to the directions in Rajnesh v. Neha.  
• It found that the respondent had no substantial independent liability materially affecting his capacity to pay, and that the maintenance awarded to the wife and daughter was on the lower side. 

Conclusion: 

The Court allowed the criminal revision and modified the Family Court's order as follows: 

What is Section 144 of BNSS? 

About:  

• Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.  
• This provision was earlier covered under Section 125 of CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). 

Who can claim maintenance: 

• Wife unable to maintain herself. 
• Legitimate/illegitimate child (married or not) unable to maintain itself. 
• Major child with physical/mental abnormality unable to maintain itself. 
• Father or mother unable to maintain themselves. 

Key provisions: 

• A First-Class Magistrate can order monthly maintenance upon proof of neglect/refusal. 
• Interim maintenance can also be ordered during pending proceedings. 
• Interim maintenance application must be disposed of within 60 days of notice. 
• Maintenance is payable from the date of order, or from the date of application if so directed. 

Non-compliance: 

• Warrant can be issued to levy the amount (like a fine). 
• Imprisonment up to one month for each month's unpaid allowance. 
• Warrant application must be made within one year of the due date. 

Wife's entitlement is cancelled if: 

• She is living in adultery. 
• She refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason. 
• They are living separately by mutual consent. 

Note: "Wife" includes a divorced woman who has not remarried. A husband keeping a mistress or remarrying is considered just ground for wife's refusal to live with him.