Sec 26 HMA:is it mandatory for wife enjoin kid as a party?

no it is not mandatory but you have to prosecute aas guardian of the child

@ Author 

Your message is confusing to me; is it about custody of child or about maint. of child !

If it is about custody of child in divorce proceedings under HMA The Act then either respondent OR petitioner can file S. 26 HMA application followed by as Guardian of child name 

If it is about maint. of child then S. 24 HMA in divorce proceedings under HMA The Act then either respondent OR petitioner can file S. 24 HMA followed by as Guardian of child name 

However for maint. of child the ruling that S. 26 HMA needs also to be filed has been dispensed long time ago by Hon'ble SC. 


 

Let me put it another way 

Here I want to be with  side of the husband and intend to be against the notorious wife!!.....................

As I understood so far ......... Order passed (3 pages!) is utterly vague, first of all, and does not cite actual reasons as contended or defended against!

What I have been thinking about hma 26 and hma 24 in regards to child maint was as follows:

Sec 26 HMA :- If earning wife asks maint 'for the sake of child ONLY' and cites this provision of sec 26 of HMA, then she is saying that 'Husband also has to bear' co-extensive responsibility for kids (Mind you! ....The wife in the context is a multi millionoire on her own!!)

Here innocent Husband becomes helpless!!! ................ BUT ...

Sec 24 HMA :- If earning wife asks maint 'for the sake of child ONLY' and cites this provision of sec 24 of HMA and takes the that .... 'the  needs of kids may also be addressed comprehensively under needs of wife' ............. so it is treated as overall necessities for ...

But basically ......... provision of sec 24 is for those who are not having the means to survive!!!  (Hence a millionaire wife can't ask any damn thing under sec 24 'for the sake of child' also as she has abundent means!!! ....)

And also  if wife starts saying that application was under sec 26 as a reminder to husband ......  about his co-extensive responsibilities!!!, irrespective whether she herself is rich/multi-millionair or not!! (Is it not frivolous!!)

Law provisions of HMA sec 26 had a different purpose altogether!!!

It was certainly not meant to give a sermon to other spouse about their co-extensive responsibilities!!!

Wife CAN NOT be allowed to use it as a tool (who happens to be a custodian during the time of marital dispute) ................ first abduct kids ......................... and use them as hostage ................... and squeeze extra bit from husband in the name of co-extensive responsibility ........... just to add salt to wounds.

The amount demanded is always so excessive that invariably wives also go to HC for revision sec 115 ... and ...................... husband vide art 227 of COI! .....................and thus wives keep dragging the case which works in their favour ..... unfortunately!!!

Misuse of legal provisions such as gathering sympathy 'In the name of chiild'  ................. needs to be stopped.

Do we have any landmark judgment on this, in favour of husband who's non-custodian father?

In last para of the Order , Hon trial court (add. dist Court) has said something like  ...........

'Husband has to bear expenses of the child ......... Husband being able bodied ...etc etc ...... Respondent is not asking for maintenance for herself but for the sake of child .....' etc etc.............

I genuinely feel that this order is assailable and a clear instance of misuse of legal provision and this has caused to suppress the voice of true victim-husband. 

Please advise on point of law and facts.

In short ..........

A millionaire wife has no standing in regards to sec 24 of HMA (child maint)

Also ......... A millionaire wife has no standing in regards to sec 26 of HMA as well (child maint) ..

........................... as this provision is not meant to "give a sermon to other spouse" about 'co-extensive responsibity'  primarily!! ....................... Here also it is needs based.

Anyways the kid is alredy deprived of company/guidance/case of both parents (which is also co-extensive ) due to litigation !!!

e.g ... Can such a so-called custodian wife ............. unilaterally decide to put the kid into a expensive boarding school ................ and demand to husband to shell out the exorbitant costs of education for kid ?

@ Author 

ha ha a very natural que. much discussed already;


1. Also note maint of minors are always co-extensive means equally shared by both parents provided both are working and are alleged to having means tro maintain themselves and Hon'ble SC also says so. 


2. Your interpretation of both S. 24 / S. 26 HMA in provided situation are bang on the mark. 


3. Many Courts have dismissed wife's such frivolous moves in similar situations even under DV Act when wife has the custody of child and she is earning nearly 70 K and yet asks maint. for child and herself form her husband who is reported to be earning 50 K.

Reasoning: 
See under S. 26 HMA 
The applicant has to show that she/he has no income sufficient for her maintenance and support and she has no means to meet the expenses of the proceedings. Once the averments of the applicant are established prima facie, the court will pass the order requiring the other party to pay the applicant some monthly or periodic monthly or periodic payment for maintenance and some lump sum amount to meet the expenses of the proceedings.
Here the facts are that the mother of child who is seeking maint. for minor child but yet has sufficient means to maintain not only herself but that of the child. That even in its widest amplitude, the golden inference that it is duty of natural father always to maintain a minor child is not so qualified in presented case facts for a simple inference that mother is more capable being women of means. Hence her appeal / review before a higher forum is nothing but a bald move and is clear misuse of provisions of gender neutral codified Laws. 


Ask Husband to file a counter relief Application to grant interim custody of child as ad interim relief since he has never filed for maint. of himself against the alleged more income having wife (custodial mother of child) and moreover he would like to maintain the child best interest whatever they are ad interim since mother is approaching higher forums on frivolous grounds which needs to be summerarily dismissed with heavy cost.