Telangana High Court
Rachapalli Prashanth, vs Rachapalli Sirisilla Shirisha, on 24 November, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
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. The above principle has been consistently followed in
subsequent judgments, including those of various High Courts. The
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pradeep Jain (supra) reaffirmed that
the "liability under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is personal and statutory, not
moral," and cannot be extended to a person who is not the biological
or adoptive father.
11. In the present case, it is an admitted position that:
a. The petitioner is only the stepfather of the minor daughter.
b. There is no adoption or legal guardianship established by the
petitioner.
c. The biological father of the minor daughter is alive, and
therefore the primary liability for her maintenance continues to
rest upon him.
12. Consequently, the order of the trial court directing the petitioner
to pay maintenance towards the minor daughter cannot be sustained
in law. However, given that the quantum of maintenance awarded is
modest (Rs.4,000 per month), and the petitioner does not dispute his
liability towards the respondent (wife), this Court finds no reason to
interfere with that portion of the order.
13. In light of the settled legal position, this Civil Revision Petition
is allowed in part. The order of the trial court is set aside to the extent
it fastens liability upon the petitioner to pay maintenance to the minor
daughter of the respondent. The maintenance awarded in favour of
the respondent (wife) shall, however, stand confirmed. All other
issues are left open for adjudication in the pending main petition
before the trial court. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 24.11.2025
CHS
