Back
Rules Working Mother Must Share Minor Child Burden With Father
In a significant ruling regarding , the of Judicature at Allahabad has reinforced the principle of . The Court dismissed a filed by a mother challenging a order that denied her individual while fixing ₹3000 per month for her minor daughter.
The - Link The dispute originated from a application filed under . The mother, Smt. Raji Bano, had previously secured of the minor child after filing a . During those proceedings, she explicitly asserted that she was financially capable of maintaining both herself and her minor daughter.
When she later approached the court for , the found that her previous assertions regarding her held substantial weight. Consequently, while it awarded ₹3000 monthly for the child’s upkeep, it rejected her plea for personal , noting that she was capable of supporting herself.
Arguments from the Parties Before Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, the revisionist-mother argued that the amount was meager and insufficient to cover the child's rising costs. She further contended that she had previously been pressured to resign from her job at and lacked a consistent source of income.
Conversely, the husband’s legal representative submitted evidence—including a salary slip—indicating the mother earned ₹14,125 per month. Crucially, it was pointed out that in the filed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in , the mother had left the occupation and income columns blank. The opposition argued that since she relied on her self-proclaimed financial ability to win , she could not now shift the entire financial burden solely onto the father.
Judicial Analysis and Principles The emphasized that, while the father is primarily responsible for a child’s educational expenses, this obligation is not absolute when the mother is also gainfully employed. Justice Shukla observed:
"Although the reasonable expenses of the minor child, including those relating to food, clothing, residence, medical care and education, are required to be adequately provided for... where the mother is also working and earning sufficiently, such expenses may be shared proportionately between both parents."
The Court further noted that having obtained on the premise of , the mother could not legally turn around to demand that the father bear the total cost of the child's upbringing without evidence of a material change in circumstances.
Final Verdict Finding the ’s order to be reasoned and balanced, the concluded that there was no "good ground to interfere." The revision petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. This decision underscores that legal assertions made to secure child have binding implications on subsequent claims, ensuring that both parents contribute to their child's needs in proportion to their respective financial capacities. ”
