Parents are legally obligated to maintain their minor children irrespective of their financial circumstances, as per relevant statutory provisions.

1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 1st October, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in suit Nos. 183/2001 and 184/2001.

2. The Appellant, a practicing advocate in the District Courts, got married to Rajni Bala on 17th February 1991. They are the parents of both the Respondents. Parul (the Respondent in FAO No. 117 of 2003) was born on 27th June, 1993 while Geetanshu (the Respondent in FAO No. 89 of 2003) was born on 7th March, 1997. Quite clearly, they are minors and both are studying in school.

3. According to their mother who filed the suit on their behalf, the Appellant has totally neglected the family with the result that she has to live with her parents (her father is an ex - serviceman from the Air Force), who also help in looking after the children. In these circumstances, the mother was compelled to file a petition in May 1995 under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C.) for her maintenance as well as for the maintenance of Parul. The Appellant chose not to appear in these proceedings. Thereafter, by an order dated 1st August 1997, the learned Magistrate awarded her and Parul maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month each, but the Appellant has not paid that amount even on a single occasion.

4. Under these circumstances, the mother filed a petition under S.20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act , 1956 sometime in 2001 claiming maintenance for their child Parul. A separate petition was filed claiming maintenance for their child Geetanshu. By an interim order dated 1st April 2002, the learned Additional District Judge directed the appellant to pay Rs.1,500/- per month each as interim maintenance from the date of presentation of the petition. The Appellant has not complied with this order and has paid only Rs.1,000/- in July 2002. In view of the conduct of the Appellant, his defence was ordered to be struck off.

5. In fact, the conduct of the Appellant during the proceedings before the learned Additional District Judge has been such that the learned Judge was constrained to comment adversely on his conduct during the proceedings. On a perusal of the case file, including the orders passed in the present appeals, I am also of the view that the conduct of the Appellant has been far from satisfactory. The impression one gets on reading the orders passed in the appeals is that the Appellant is least concerned about the orders passed by any Court and thinks that he can get away by flouting them with impunity. This is a little unfortunate, particularly since the Appellant is an advocate.

6. Be that as it may, the learned Additional District Judge passed a final order (impugned) whereby he awarded a sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month per child as maintenance. Aggrieved by the said award, the Appellant has preferred these appeals.

7. According to the Appellant, he does not have much of a practice as an advocate. He was appointed as an Oath Commissioner to supplement his income. He says that he is a chronic patient of asthma and is, therefore, not able to stand up to the rigours of private practice.

8. The learned Additional District Judge noted that the Appellant had filed proceedings under S.25 of the Guardians and Wards Act , 1890, being Petition No. 182/1997, claiming custody of the two children. Although that petition was dismissed, the Appellant described his status and income in paragraph 14 of the petition in the following words:
"The petitioner is a practising advocate as well as having good practice and belongs to good and reputed family. He has no liability except then to maintain himself, and the father of the petitioner is Police Officer in UP Police not only that the younger brothe