In a recent ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has reaffirmed the legal obligation of fathers to provide maintenance for their children, even if the mother is employed and financially stable. The case, CRM(M) No.443/2024, brought forward important considerations regarding parental responsibilities and financial obligations, shedding light on the interpretation of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).
Case Background
The case involved a petition filed by two minors, represented by their mother, seeking maintenance from their father. The mother, who works as a government teacher, alleged that the father had neglected his duties as a parent, forcing the children to rely solely on her income. The family court proceedings began with the mother filing the petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam.
The father, a qualified engineer with work experience in Saudi Arabia, contended that he was jobless and that the mother, due to her stable government employment, could support the children. However, the family court found in favor of the mother and children, ordering the father to pay a monthly maintenance of INR 4,500 for each child. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam. Dissatisfied, the father escalated the matter to the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
Key Legal Issues
The case primarily revolved around two significant legal issues:
1. Maintenance Responsibility Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: The court had to determine whether the father’s financial obligations towards his children were nullified or diminished due to the mother’s employment status and her ability to support the children independently.
2. Assessment of the Father’s Financial Capability: Evaluating the father’s financial situation was crucial to determine a fair maintenance amount, given his claims of unemployment and financial hardship.
Court’s Observations and Judgment
Presiding over the case, Justice Sanjay Dhar delivered the judgment on July 29, 2024, emphasizing the father’s undiminished responsibility towards his children’s welfare, irrespective of the mother’s financial standing. The court stated:
“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 the mother of the respondents is a working lady and she has her own income, but that does not absolve the petitioner of his legal and moral responsibility to maintain his children.”
Also Read
Justice Dhar further noted that the father’s claims of financial incapacity were unsubstantiated, as he failed to provide evidence to support his assertions of earning only INR 12,000 monthly. Additionally, the father’s previous earnings in Saudi Arabia were not satisfactorily accounted for.
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the father’s petition, reinforcing the earlier rulings by the lower courts. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to prioritizing children’s rights and welfare, ensuring they receive adequate support from both parents.
