Statutory obligation to provide for a minor child's maintenance prevails over allegations against the custodial parent; interim maintenance must consider child needs and parents' financial capabilities.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (hereinafter ‘CrPC’), with a prayer to set aside the order dated 16.04.2024 in Crl. M.P. No. 28 of 2020 in M.C. No. 17 of 2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. I have heard Mr. V.V. Siva Rama Krishna Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel, representing Mr.P.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.3-State.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1 and the father of respondent No.2. The petitioner and respondent No.1 were married on 02.08.2009, and on 18.12.2014, they were blessed with their daughter, respondent No.2. Due to matrimonial discord and allegations of mental and physical cruelty, respondent No.1 initiated legal proceedings in the United States and obtained a restraint order on 06.05.2016, which was later withdrawn. Thereafter, owing to continued matrimonial disputes, the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been living separately since 23.01.2017.

Subsequently, the petitioner instituted a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, while respondent No.1 filed multiple proceedings, including a petition for divorce, a maintenance case, and a domestic violence case. In M.C. No.17 of 2019, respondent No.1 sought monthly maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- for herself and Rs.50,000/- for respondent No.2. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed petitions for perjury and contempt. By the impugned order, the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to respondent No.2 from the date of the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.1, along with respondent No.2, deserted him in 2016 and has since been residing separately. While the Family Court acknowledged that both parents bear equal responsibility for maintaining their minor child, it nevertheless directed the petitioner to pay maintenance, ignoring the fact that respondent No.1 is a qualified and earning doctor. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 herself admitted in O.P. No.463 of 2017 that she was employed in the U.S.A. and that she had also received financial support from the petitioner for her education. The impugned order, however, was passed without proper assessment of the petitioner’s financial capacity.

The petitioner further asserts that the trial Court failed to consider his perjury and contempt petitions, filed against respondent No.1 for allegedly submitting a false affidavit concerning her assets and liabilities. Moreover, despite respondent No.1 denying him access to his daughter, she filed the maintenance case solely to harass him. It is further contended that the Family Court erred in granting interim maintenance without first deciding the petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The petitioner also states that he has been unemployed since May 2020. Despite his bona fide offer to contribute Rs.10,000/- per month towards his child’s maintenance, the Family Court, without applying the principles under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, mandating equal responsibility of both parents directed him to pay Rs.25,000/- per month. Hence, he prays for interference and setting aside of the impugned order.

In support of these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Syed Nazim Husain v. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court and another (2003 SCC OnLine All 2358) and Criminal Revision No.3760 of 2023 (2023 SCC OnLine All 2776, order d