The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stated that just because the mother is working doesn’t mean the father is free from his legal and moral duty to support his children.
The Court rejected a husband’s request to overturn a trial Court’s order requiring him to pay maintenance for his minor children. The husband argued that he shouldn’t have to pay since the children’s mother also has an income.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “It is the legal as well as moral obligation of the petitioner being the father of the respondents to maintain them. It is true that mother of the respondents is a working lady and she has her own income but that does not absolve the petitioner, being the father of the respondents, of his legal and moral responsibility to maintain his children. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that because mother of the respondents is earning, therefore, he cannot be directed to pay maintenance, is without any substance.”
Advocate Mir Majid Bashir represented the petitioner.
The minor children (respondents) filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against their father through their mother. They claimed that their father had been cruel to their mother and neglected to support them, forcing them to depend solely on their mother’s income as a teacher.
They also stated that their father, a technical engineer who had worked in Saudi Arabia, earned a lot of money and had the means to support them.
In response, the father argued that he was a caring parent who had been paying for the children’s expenses but had since lost his job. He also claimed that his earnings from Saudi Arabia were given to his wife, who allegedly used them to buy property in her name.
The trial court decided that the father had neglected his children and that they couldn’t support themselves. Therefore, it ordered him to pay monthly maintenance for them.
The father appealed the decision, saying that his income was used to care for his sick parents and that the children’s mother, who was a government teacher with a good salary, should also share the responsibility.
The High Court explained that the father still had a legal and moral duty to support his children. It said that even though the mother was working and earning, the father couldn’t avoid his responsibilities.
“In fact the petitioner has not led any evidence before the trial Magistrate to rebut the evidence produced by the respondents with regard to his income obviously because he has been set ex-parte,” the Court remarked.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: B v. M & Ors.
