The Jharkhand High Court has made it clear that a father is liable to support and maintain his children, irrespective of their mother's employment.

Justice Subhash Chand observed,

“So far as the income of the petitioner—wife in the maintenance application is concerned, admittedly she is getting Rs.12 to 14 thousand per month and she is maintaining herself and both the minor children. Even if the salary of the wife Nibha Singh is taken into consideration, the responsibility of father of both the children is also to maintain both the children.”

The father had preferred a revision petition against a Family Court order directing him to pay Rs.5,000/- monthly maintenance to each of his two children.

The wife alleged that the petitioner had a fixed salary income and additional income from ancestral agricultural land but he had been neglecting to maintain the children ever since she lodged a complaint against him for dowry harassment.

Aggrieved by Family Court's order, the husband approached the High Court contending that he was unemployed whereas his wife had been working since much before filing the maintenance application.

However, from the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, the Court noted that the husband was earlier Loan Manager in a Bank and currently is doing a job in an NGO.

So far as his income is concerned, the Court noted that the same was not disclosed by the husband, while the burden of proof lay upon him in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Thus the Court drew an adverse inference against him and from the oral evidence on record it noted that he had not denied that his annual income from the agricultural land was Rs.10 lakh.

The Court further noted that the husband had no liability in the family to maintain anyone, except his two children. Thus it held, “Though the learned trial court has not given its finding in regard to the income of the Opposite Party in maintenance application, yet given finding in regard to means to maintain both the minor children taking into consideration, 8 to 10 acres of ancestral land, in which Opposite Party of maintenance application is also having vested right and in view of doing job in NGO.”

“The finding given by the learned trial court while directing the Opposite Party – husband to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month for both the minor children and this maintenance amount is not found disproportionate in view of income of the Opposite Party of the maintenance application, who is also income tax payee,” the Court added.

In view of the finding, the revision petition was dismissed.

Appearance:

For the Applicant: Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni

For the Respondent: Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Mr. Suraj Singh and Mr. Akshay Kumar

Case No.: Cr. Revision No.10 of 2022

Case Title: Raghubar Singh @ Raghuber Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and ors.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 15

Click here to Read/ Download Judgment