The Delhi High Court in the case Rky v Md observed and has stated that an individual who is marrying a person who has a child cannot be allowed to argue later before the court that the child being not his or her responsibility.
The division bench comprising of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that when a person who already has a child, wherein stated that the person shall be presumed to have undertaken the responsibility of the child and also cannot later be permitted to contend that the child is not his or her responsibility.
In the present case, the court dismissed the petition moved by a husband challenging an order passed by the family court dismissing his application wherein seeking modification of the final judgment wherein divorce was granted on the ground of desertion to him from his wife.
It has been directed by the Family Court that the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500 to the two children for the first five years and amount of Rs. 3,500 for the another five years. It has also been directed by him to pay Rs. 5,000 each till both the children get married or the children become financially independent.
Facts of the Case:
In the first marriage of Wife, an elder daughter was born with an Army personnel, the younger daughter was being born out of the wedlock with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner in the plea seek modification of the order of the Family Court on the ground that the elder daughter was shown as a dependent in the order which is issued by the Army and a family member of his former wife’s late first husband. The court stated that there being no such dispute between the parties that the petitioner was aware that the first daughter of his wife was being born out of her first marriage at the time when the marriage was solemnized by him with her.
It has been observed by the court that an order passed by the Army Authorities wherein it is showed that the elder daughter of the wife from her marriage as a family member of her late husband would not have any bearing on the order of the family court’s as the petitioner was also being aware of the existence of the daughter and had also undertaken her responsibility.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.
