E-Paper
Father can’t be absolved of maintaining children if mother earns more: Delhi HC
A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the obligation to maintain minor children is not only a statutory duty but also a legal, moral, and social responsibility
The Delhi high court has ruled that a father cannot be absolved of maintaining his minor children merely because the mother earns more, underlining that the income of one parent does not absolve the other from their legal and moral obligations.
A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Saturday held that the obligation to maintain minor children is not only a statutory duty but also a legal, moral, and social responsibility of both parents. “The earning capacity of the working parent, whether husband or wife, in whose custody the minor children are, does not erase or diminish that parent’s responsibility as a caregiver, who continues to bear the burden of shouldering the dual responsibility of earning as well as being the primary caregiver to the minor children.”
The court said in such cases, the obligation of the father towards the minor children does not diminish merely because the wife has been forced to shoulder this dual responsibility. “A court of law cannot burden nor does the law mandate that the working mother should be forced to exhaust herself physically, emotionally, and financially, and allow the father to take refuge behind selective, misleading disclosures about his income and technical pleas.”
Justice Sharma delivered the verdict on a man’s petition against a lower court’s March 2024 order directing him to pay ₹10,000 each as interim maintenance to his three minor children.
After the husband allegedly subjected the wife to physical, emotional, and economic abuse, the couple separated years after marrying in January 2014. The woman filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and sought maintenance for the children.
In December 2023, the lower court directed the husband to pay ₹30,000 per month as maintenance for the children, to be deposited into the wife’s bank account until the domestic violence case was decided or the children attained majority. A sessions court dismissed the man’s appeal in March 2024.
In his petition before the high court, the man said that he lacked the financial capacity to pay interim maintenance, since his monthly income was only ₹9,000 and his wife earned ₹34,500. He argued that placing the entire burden of maintenance on him, despite his wife’s substantially higher income, was contrary to the established principles governing maintenance laws.
The man claimed that the wife was unjustifiably seeking maintenance for the children, arguing that her claim amounted to a misuse of maintenance laws and reflected a sense of entitlement as a woman.
The woman argued that the lower court’s order was limited to maintenance for the couple’s three minor children in her custody, and that her own earnings did not relieve the husband of his legal responsibility to contribute to their children’s upkeep.
She submitted that the day-to-day responsibility for the children’s upbringing, including their education, medical care, and overall welfare, rested entirely with her.
The high court modified the order by reducing the maintenance from ₹30,000 to ₹25,000. It rejected the man’s contention that the claim for maintenance for their children amounted to a misuse of maintenance laws and portrayed a sense of entitlement.
The high court ruled that the wife’s conduct did not reflect entitlement or dependency, but an effort to make the other partner realise his responsibility towards the children. “The conduct of the wife in the present case, in this court’s opinion, does not reflect entitlement, but a sense of responsibility towards the children born from the wedlock, ie, the union of the husband as well as the wife. It also reflects not entitlement or dependency, but an effort to make the other partner realise his responsibility towards the children,” the high court said.
