Maintenance for a minor must reflect parents' financial status and responsibilities; past claims require supportive evidence.

JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The mother of a minor daughter filed an Original Petition seeking past maintenance from the father for the child. A separate Maintenance Case was also filed on behalf of the minor for future maintenance. By the impugned common judgment, the Family Court dismissed the petition for past maintenance but allowed future maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. The said judgment is challenged by the father as well as the minor daughter, represented by the mother, to the extent it is adverse to their interests.

2. The marriage between the father and mother of the minor child was solemnized on 06.01.2006. The marriage was dissolved by mutual consent on 12.03.2013. The child has been residing with the mother. The Original Petition was filed by the mother on behalf of the minor, seeking past maintenance for three years at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month. The Maintenance Case sought future maintenance at the same rate. At the time of filing, the child was four years old.

3. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in the Original Petition. Alleging that the respondent, who has been working in the USA, is immensely wealthy and earning more than Rs.20 lakhs per month in Indian currency, and that he has neglected to maintain the child, the above petitions were filed. On behalf of the minor child, it was contended that the mother required Rs.50,000/- per month to meet the day-to-day expenses of the child.

4. The respondent resisted the claim by contending that the mother also bears responsibility for maintaining the child. He asserted that she is the Executive Director of the G-Sons Group, earning a substantial salary, and that the petitions were filed merely to harass him. He stated that his monthly salary is only 4,725 US dollars, from which he must meet all his personal expenses. He further contended that the claim of Rs.50,000/- per month was exorbitant, considering the child was only four years old, and that he had been regularly sending Rs.5,000/- every month for the child’s maintenance, which, according to him, was sufficient. The claim for past maintenance was thus described as baseless.

5. The mother and father were examined as PW1 and RW1, respectively. Both sides produced documentary evidence, including Exts. A1 to A3 and B1 to B11. Ext.X1 series were also marked. Upon evaluating the evidence, the trial court concluded that since the respondent had sent Rs.1,80,000/- to the mother during the preceding three years, no amount towards past maintenance was payable. After assessing the income of both parents, the court held that Rs.20,000/- per month would be a reasonable amount as future maintenance for the child, and allowed recovery of the monthly maintenance from the date of the petition.

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/father as well as for the minor child represented by her mother.

7. There is no dispute that both parents of the minor child are financially well placed. The respondent has been working as a Senior Research Chemist in the United States of America. In cross-examination, he conceded that he had an annual income of 70,000 US dollars in 2006. The mother, when examined as PW1, admitted that she had also been working in the United States alongside the respondent and later worked as a Project Manager in Bangalore with a monthly salary of Rs.60,000/-.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent produced certain additional documents to show that the mother is a wealthy business entrepreneur and the Executive Director of the G-Sons Group. He also relied on two newspaper