In a recent ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld a Family Court’s order granting interim maintenance to a minor daughter, reaffirming the father’s obligation to provide financial support irrespective of the mother’s earnings. This decision, delivered by Justice Sumeet Goel, highlights the court’s stance on parental responsibility and the legal duties of both parents, even when one parent has sufficient means to support the child.
Case Background
The case, titled CRR(F)-1355 of 2024, involved a petitioner, the father, challenging an order passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Camp Court, Nabha. The Family Court had ordered him to pay Rs. 7,000 monthly as interim maintenance to his minor daughter, alongside litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000. Represented by Advocate Rahul Garg, the petitioner argued that his limited income of Rs. 22,000 per month and existing family obligations were not considered. He contended that the child’s mother, a government teacher with a monthly salary of Rs. 35,400, had sufficient means to care for the child independently.
Legal Issues Addressed
1. Parental Obligation for Child Support: The core legal question in this case was whether the father’s responsibility to support his minor daughter could be negated due to the mother’s financial capability.
2. Interpretation of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): Section 125 Cr.P.C., which mandates maintenance for wives and children, was examined concerning whether the father’s duty could be diminished if the mother was financially independent.
3. Interim Maintenance: The court addressed the provisional nature of interim maintenance orders, underscoring their intent to ensure immediate relief until a final determination is reached.
Court’s Observations and Judgment
Justice Sumeet Goel’s ruling emphasized the father’s legal and moral responsibility to support his minor child, stating, “A father has an equal duty to provide for his children, and there cannot be a situation wherein it is only the mother who has to bear the burden of expenses for raising and educating the child.” This statement reflects the court’s position that a father cannot evade his obligation merely because the mother has a stable income.
The court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. (2021), which underscored the importance of providing interim relief promptly in maintenance cases to avoid hardship for the dependent spouse or children. The High Court further noted that interim maintenance is an estimated, temporary measure, not affecting the final maintenance amount, which will be determined in full trial proceedings.
The High Court dismissed the father’s petition, highlighting that interim maintenance aimed to balance immediate financial support for the child pending a comprehensive decision. Justice Goel clarified that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is designed as a tool for social justice to protect women and children from destitution, which the father, as the petitioner, must uphold regardless of the mother’s financial condition.
The court also dismissed the petitioner’s claim that, since the child was in her mother’s custody, his responsibility was reduced. It stated, “If the husband/father has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children and cannot shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities.” The court viewed the petitioner’s contentions as matters for a full trial, stating they could not be conclusively resolved in the interim stage.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
1. Irrespective of Custodial Arrangements, Both Parents Share Financial Responsibility: The High Court reasserted that financial responsibility for children is equally shared by both parents, irrespective of custodial arrangements or the mother’s income.
2. Interim Maintenance Is Provisional, Subject to Final Decision: The court reiterated that interim maintenance orders are not final and may be adjusted based on the eventual outcome of the maintenance proceedings.
3. Social Justice Mandate of Section 125 Cr.P.C.: Emphasizing the protective purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C., the High Court underscored that the law aims to prevent abandonment and destitution, underscoring the duty of financially capable parents to contribute to their children’s welfare.
