Even If Wife Leaves Husband, It Doesn’t Absolve Him Of Duty To Provide Maintenance To Minor Child: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]

Imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000 on one Nirajkumar Kapurchand Jain who has a 7-year-old son, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court has said a father cannot run away from the responsibility nor can he be allowed to skip his obligation to maintain his son or daughter and father is duty-bound to provide all facilities, including better facilities for education and health, for his minor child.

Case Background

Justice VM Deshpande passed the order while hearing two revision applications filed by Jain challenging an order of the family court, wherein applicant Jain was ordered to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 7,000 to his wife and son.

Applicant’s advocate PU Nandanwar argued that it was his client’s wife who had voluntarily withdrawn from the company of her husband and, hence, was not entitled to maintenance.

Nandanwar also submitted that his client’s petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed by a Bhopal Court on January 16, 2016.

Noting that it is the duty of every father to maintain his minor child, the court said: “In the present case, it is established on record that from 12.6.2012 present applicant, who is a father of minor son Aryan, has not shouldered his responsibility to provide even the basic amenities to his son. It is not the case of applicant/father that he has provided any financial aid to his wife in order to show that he has shouldered his responsibility as a father. In that view of the matter, present applicant cannot agitate the issue before this Court on the ground that his wife has withdrawn her company from his society. The wife may withdraw the company, but that does not absolve responsibility of the father to provide maintenance to his son or daughter.”

Justice Deshpande also noted that the sessions judge had recorded in his order that Bhopal court had passed the decree of restitution of conjugal rights behind the wife’s back.

The court also rejected Jain’s contention that he was a servant at a garment shop and not the owner on the basis of document submitted by the wife wherein it is clearly stated that the shop is in Jain’s name.

Thus, the sessions order of maintenance of Rs. 7,000 per month was upheld and an additional cost of Rs. 25,000 was imposed.