A father remains legally obligated to provide financial support to his minor children even if his estranged wife earns a stable income, the Karnataka High Court has ruled while dismissing a man’s challenge against a maintenance order.
Justice Ravi V. Hosmani upheld concurrent rulings from lower courts directing the petitioner to pay Rs 2,000 per month for each of his two minor sons until they reach the age of majority. In its July 16 order, the court emphasized that a father’s duty to maintain his children is continuous and independent under both Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Islamic personal law.
Obligation Under Personal And Criminal Law
The High Court observed that where marital discord exists between parents, minor children are entitled to maintenance. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the bench reiterated that under Mohammedan law, a father’s legal obligation to maintain his sons continues until they become adults or achieve financial self-sufficiency, regardless of whether the children reside with their mother.
Justice Hosmani noted that while both parents in this case are employed, the mother’s income as a government school teacher does not absolve the father of his financial responsibility toward his children.
Failure To Prove Financial Inability
Addressing the father’s contention that he worked merely as a daily-wage teacher in an Urdu school with limited financial means, the court highlighted that he failed to produce documentary proof, such as salary certificates, to support his assertion.
In contrast, material on record indicated that the petitioner earned a monthly salary exceeding Rs 20,000, owned residential and landed property, and had additional earnings of over Rs 25,000 per month. The court noted that despite having sufficient income, he had failed to provide financial support.
Dispute History And Lower Court Findings
The proceedings originated from a dispute following the couple’s 2008 marriage. The mother alleged that her husband subjected her to dowry-related harassment, neglected the family, and failed to provide financial support since 2012.
The husband denied the allegations and argued that the maintenance petition was filed out of vengeance after a police investigation into the dowry complaint concluded with a ‘B’ report—a final closure report indicating a lack of evidence against the accused. He argued that as a private teacher, he should not be required to pay maintenance when his wife had a stable government salary.
Both the trial court and the revisional court rejected the husband’s arguments. The High Court concluded that the lower courts had appropriately evaluated the financial standing of both parents alongside the needs of the children, finding the Rs 2,000 monthly allowance per child to be neither excessive nor unreasonable.
