Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Dharmendra Dhaniya - Appellant
Versus
Smt Reena Middal & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 776 of 2020
Decided On : 09-07-2021
MAINTENANCE - FAMILY LAW - The court upheld the Family Court's order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 15,000/- monthly maintenance for his minor daughter, emphasizing the shared parental obligation to support children and the reasonableness of the amount in light of the petitioner's substantial income and the child's best interests.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Dharmendra Dhaniya, challenged a Family Court order that partially accepted an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from his wife and daughter, mandating him to pay Rs. 15,000/- monthly for his daughter's maintenance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both parents have an obligation to maintain their minor children. It noted the wife's efforts in raising the child and deemed the maintenance amount reasonable given the petitioner's salary of Rs. 69,111/- per month.
Issues: Whether the Family Court's order for maintenance was justified considering both parents' financial responsibilities and the child's best interests.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that both parents are equally responsible for the maintenance of their children, and the amount awarded must reflect the child's needs and the parents' financial capabilities.
Result: The revision petition and stay application were rejected, affirming the Family Court's order as justified and free from legal infirmities.
JUDGMENT
1. The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner Dharmendra Dhaniya for assailing the order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the Judge, Family Court No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No.13/2019 whereby, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. preferred by the respondents being the wife and daughter of the petitioner, was partly accepted and the petitioner herein was directed to make payment of a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards monthly maintenance to his minor daughter respondent No.2.
2. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel Shri Arora representing the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order.
3. Suffice it to say that the petitioner is a Teacher in the Education Department and as per his salary statement, he was drawing net salary of Rs.69,111/- per month. The sole argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner for assailing the impugned order is that the respondent wife Smt. Reena is also posted as a Teacher in the Education Department and that she too earns handsome salary and thus, it is her obligation to maintain the child. I have considered the said submission advanced by Shri Arora and have carefully perused the impugned order.
4. Suffice it to say that there cannot be any dispute regarding obligation of both the parents to maintain the minor children. The Family Court consciously deliberated upon the entire material available on record and held that Smt. Reena was bringing up the child with all possible love and affection and all efforts were being put in by her to ensure the best interest of the child. The petitioner who earns a hefty salary by working as a Teacher in the Education Department, cannot shrug off the responsibility to bear the expenses for the upbringing of the child. A sum of Rs.15,000/- per month awarded to the child as maintenance cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable by any stretch of imagination in these times of high cost of living.
5. Thus, I am of the firm opinion that the learned Family Court was absolutely justified in directing the petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance of his daughter while deciding the application by the impugned order dated 09.09.2020 which ex-facie does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity whatsoever warranting interference therein.
6. Hence, the revision petition as well as stay application are rejected as being devoid of merit.
Both parents have a legal obligation to maintain their minor children, and maintenance amounts should be reasonable and reflective of the parents' financial situations.
Maintenance can be awarded from the date of petition filing when neglect is established; Courts must consider the financial circumstances and needs of dependents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the wife and minor child, and the court's discretion to enhance the maintenance base....
A husband has a legal obligation to provide maintenance to his wife and child, and the court has the discretion to determine the amount based on the husband's ability to pay and the needs of the depe....
A husband must provide reasonable maintenance to his wife and children based on his income, and courts can modify maintenance orders if they find them unreasonable.
Interim maintenance must reflect the child's needs and not be undermined by the parent's personal liabilities; both parents contribute to the child's welfare.
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C should be awarded from the date of the application, and evidence is essential to substantiate income claims.
Interim maintenance orders are final and enforceable, reflecting the husband's obligation to support his wife and children, irrespective of the wife's prior earnings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
