Allahabad High Court recently noted that a father is legally bound to maintain his child as per the status and lifestyle and it doesn’t matter that mother is working and earning.
The High Court bench comprising Justice Raj Beer Singh observed that a father can’t be absolved of his responsibility to maintain a child on the ground that the child does not show compassion towards him.
The bench set aside a family court order where a daughter has filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from her father. The family court rejected her appeal and observed that she is not entitled to maintenance from her father as her mother has sufficient means of income and has been maintaining her.
The family court had also noted that the mother had not apprised the court about her income and therefore, her motive was not good and fair. Noting that the father has disclosed his income before the court whereas the mother had deliberately failed to do the same, the bench held that the case of maintenance was not made out in favour of the revisionist.
The daughter filed an instant revision plea challenging the family court order and prayed that she be provided Rs 10,000 monthly towards interim maintenance and Rs 40,00,000 for the purpose of education and marriage during the pendency of revision.
The party no. 2 (father) argued that his wife has sufficient income and she is financially capable of maintaining her daughter.
The father also submitted that he and his wife have not been living together and the daughter has been residing with her mother. He added that he wants to bring his daughter into his house so that he can maintain her.
“The finding of the court below that the revisionist was not showing emotional feeling and compassion towards her father on the dates when the case was fixed for hearing, has got no legs. It is the duty of the father to maintain her child and the revisionist being a daughter is entitled to seek maintenance from her father. The court below further committed error while making an observation that the mother herself was working in H.A.L., Lucknow, therefore, she has to maintain the revisionist. The finding is further incorrect, wherein, it is observed that the mother is maintaining her daughter since 1991 and thus it is presumed that all the needs of child are being fulfilled,” the bench stated.
