Daughter's Glossy Instagram Pictures Not Conclusive Proof Of Income: Bombay High Court Upholds Maintenance By Father To Major Daughter
The Bombay High Court has refused to modify the maintenance amount payable by a father to his major daughter observing that her 'glossy' Instagram photographs weren't sufficient proof of her income. "It is a well-known fact that it is the habit of the youth of today to project a glossy picture and post the same in the social media though its contents may not always be true,''...
The Bombay High Court has refused to modify the maintenance amount payable by a father to his major daughter observing that her 'glossy' Instagram photographs weren't sufficient proof of her income.
"It is a well-known fact that it is the habit of the youth of today to project a glossy picture and post the same in the social media though its contents may not always be true,'' Justice Bharati Dangre observed.
After perusing printed copies of the daughter's Instagram profile where she claimed she earned Rs. 72- Rs 80 lakhs as a model, the court upheld the family court's observation that "photographs of instagram and her instagram biography is not sufficient to hold that she has independent and sufficient income."
Justice Dangre said there wasn't enough independent evidence to show the woman's true income and therefore declined to interfere with the family court's order on the father's application.
The family court had refused to modify its 2018 order granting interim maintenance of Rs 25,000 to major unmarried daughter under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
"Considering the earnings of the petitioner-husband and his responsibility to maintain his daughter, who was found to be without any source of income and, particularly, when she is prosecuting her career at Pearl Academy, which warranted huge fees to be incurred," Justice Dangre rejected the plea for modification.
The petitioner husband and his wife have had a marital discord since 2014. In 2018, she had sought maintenance and the family court directed him to pay 25, 000 from July 2015 till disposal of main petition.
The father sought modification of the order citing subsequent developments. He approached the High Court after the family court refused relief. "I do not see any illegality or perversity, in the impugned order and upholding the same, the writ petition is rejected," Justice Dangre said.
Case Title : Anil Chandravadan Mistry Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 226