- In Km. Ankita Dikshit vs State of UP and anr. the Hon’ble Allahabad HC has observed that a father is legally bound to maintain his child according to his status and lifestyle and it is irrelevant if the mother of the child is also working and earning.
- The Court was also of the opinion that a father cannot be absolved from this responsibility on the ground that the child does not show compassion towards him.
- The instant revision had been preferred to set aside the judgement and order of ADJ Family Court under section 125 CrPC, denying the grant of maintenance. It was also prayed that the Court orders Rs. 10,000 as interim maintenance to the revisionist and Rs. 40,00,000 for the purposes of marriage and education of the revisionist, during the pendency of the revision.
- It was argued by the opposite party no.2 (the husband) that his wife (mother of the revisionist) had sufficient income, due to which she is financially capable of maintaining the daughter (revisionist), who was 10 years old.
- It was further submitted by the husband that he and his wife were living separately and that he wanted to bring his daughter (revisionist) to his house so that he can maintain her.
- The Court discarded the contentions put forth by the husband and observed that the finding of the lower Court that the revisionist was not showing emotional feelings and compassion towards her father on the dates when the case was called for hearing could not stand. It was the duty of the father to maintain his child.
- The HC was also of the opinion that the lower Court had committed an error while making an observation that the mother was working in H.A.L. Lucknow and thus, would have to maintain her daughter.
- The Hon’ble HC relied upon the decision given by the Apex Court in Rajnesh vs Neha (2021) SCC wherein it was held that both the working mother and the working father have to take responsibility of maintaining their child, and if the mother is working, it does not mean that the father would be absolved from taking responsibility of his child.
- The Court also took note of the fact that the salary slip deposited by the husband would indicate that his total salary was Rs. 78,825/- out of which he had deposited Rs. 45,000/- per month in provident fund just to show that he was getting a lessor income, so that the revisionist may not claim appropriate amount for maintenance.
- Thus, allowing the revision, the order of the lower Court was set aside and the Court was directed to pass a fresh order on the application for maintenance within a period of three months.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
