A father has a legal obligation to financially support his minor child, and interim maintenance must be based on both parents' financial disclosures.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to set aside the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.323 of 2022 in M.C.No.10 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for their minor daughter (respondent No.3), pending disposal of the main maintenance proceedings. The marriage was solemnized on 24.11.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It was alleged that at the time of marriage, substantial dowry, comprising Rs.10,00,000/- and 10 tolas of gold, was provided by the family of respondent Nos.2 and 3. After residing briefly with the petitioner, respondent No.2 resumed her employment as an Assistant Executive Engineer in TSGENCO. According to her, the petitioner, a Software Engineer drawing a monthly income of Rs.1,20,000/- subjected her to mental harassment, particularly on the grounds of delayed conception. Despite her eventual pregnancy and the birth of a female child on 18.01.2019, she contended that the petitioner offered no support during or after the pregnancy and remained uninvolved even during crucial familial ceremonies. Though efforts at reconciliation were initiated during proceedings before this Court, the petitioner allegedly failed to follow through, notably by not withdrawing the divorce petition he had filed earlier. Respondent No.2, while independently employed, stated she had engaged a caregiver for the child at a monthly cost of Rs.15,000/-, asserting that the overall monthly expenses for the child amounted to Rs.35,000/-.

3. The petitioner, in his counter, denied all allegations including those related to dowry, harassment, and income. However, he admitted his relationship with respondent Nos.2 and 3 and expressed willingness to provide Rs.7,500/- per month as interim maintenance for the minor child. Despite this admission, no payments were made, and the counsel of the petitioner failed to appear for oral arguments.

4. The trial Court, while noting that disputed allegations require trial, emphasized that the mother’s earning capacity does not absolve the father of his legal obligation to maintain the child. Consequently, trial Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month to respondent No.3, effective from the date of filing of the petition, and directed the respondent to credit the said amount directly into the bank account of respondent No.2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-husband filed the present criminal petition.

5. Heard Sri N. Vasishta, learned counsel appearing on bhelaf of the petitioner as well as Sri Shaik Madar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside and that there is a patent error in the order wherein it is recorded that the matter was heard on 04.02.2021, despite the fact that the main M.C.No.10 of 2022 itself was filed only in July 2022. He further submitted that this clearly reflects a factual inconsistency and raises serious doubts about the judicial application of mind and that although the respondent had filed an affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities, the impugned order was passed merely on the basis of pleadings, without appreciating the financial disclosures of both parties. This approach runs contrary to the binding precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha , [(2021) 2 SCC