Father has obligation to maintain children even if mother is working: Jammu and Kashmir High Court

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently observed that a father has a legal and moral obligation to maintain his minor children even if their mother is a working lady who has her own income..Justice Sanjay Dhar said that the mother being a working person does not absolve a father of his responsibility to maintain his children.The Court made the observation in a case where a man pleaded that he did not have enough income to pay maintenance to his minor children. The man had additionally argued that his estranged wife (and the mother of the children) was a working woman who had sufficient income to take care of the children. The Court, however, rejected this argument. "It is the legal as well as moral obligation of the petitioner being the father of the respondents (minor children) 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," the Court said. .The petition before the Court was filed by the man who challenged a magistrate court's order to pay ₹4,500 as maintenance for each of his three children. The man (petitioner) approached the High Court after his challenge to the maintenance order was dismissed by a sessions court. .Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that his monthly income was only ₹12,000 and that it was not possible for him to pay ₹13,500 as maintenance for his children, particularly when he has to support his ailing parents as well.He further argued that the mother of the children was a government teacher who drew a handsome salary. As such, the liability to maintain the children cannot be fastened upon him alone, he added.The High Court, however, noted that the petitioner had not submitted any evidence before the trial court to show that he only earned ₹12,000 per month. On the other hand, the Court noted that it was undisputed that he was a qualified engineer who had earlier worked abroad. The Court was also not convinced by a claim that the petitioner had given all of his earnings to his wife who used it to buy some property. There was no evidence led in the trial court to show this, the Court found.The High Court proceeded to hold that it could not re-appreciate the evidence led before the trial court. Therefore, it dismissed the petition. .Advocate Mir Majid Bashir appeared for the petitioner..[Read Order]