Even if estranged wife earns, man must provide for child: HC
 |
A man cannot be relieved of
his responsibility of contributing to the financial needs of his child
merely because his estranged wife is economically sound, the Bombay high
court has ruled. Justice M S Sonak upheld a family court's interim
order, directing Pune resident Prakash Mehta to pay Rs 8,000 a month
for the rent of a flat where his estranged wife Seema and their child
live. Mehta had claimed Seema, an IT engineer, earned over Rs 60,000 a
month, while his monthly salary was Rs 35,000.
“The conclusion in all cases cannot be that if a wife can provide for their child, her spouse is altogether relieved of his obligation to contribute to the financial needs of the child,“ said the judge. The HC also rejected Mehta's contention that the family court could not have passed the order for providing a residence as the main application for maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act was still not decided. The court said an application, seeking relief of residence under Domestic Violence Act, was maintainable.
“There is no question of awaiting the disposal of the main proceedings and only then, giving an order for providing a residence. If such a strained interpretation is permitted, the very object is likely to be frustrated,“ the judge said. The court pointed out that Seema bore all the expenses of maintenance, education and medical needs of their minor child, while Mehta did not shell out anything.
“There can be no doubt that the responsibility to provide maintenance and shelter to a minor child is equal for both the parents,“ the judge added.
Seema had approached the court, seeking maintenance for herself and her child from Mehta. She sought interim relief, claiming Mehta had allowed the leave and licence agreement of their matrimonial flat in Pune to lapse in order to harass her. She was then forced to find a new house and paid a rent of Rs 9,000 per month. Mehta claimed Seema and the child lived in her brother's flat and did not pay rent.The HC, however, disagreed and said Seema's brother was not under any legal obligation to provide her residence gratis.
(Names changed to protect the family's identity)
“The conclusion in all cases cannot be that if a wife can provide for their child, her spouse is altogether relieved of his obligation to contribute to the financial needs of the child,“ said the judge. The HC also rejected Mehta's contention that the family court could not have passed the order for providing a residence as the main application for maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act was still not decided. The court said an application, seeking relief of residence under Domestic Violence Act, was maintainable.
“There is no question of awaiting the disposal of the main proceedings and only then, giving an order for providing a residence. If such a strained interpretation is permitted, the very object is likely to be frustrated,“ the judge said. The court pointed out that Seema bore all the expenses of maintenance, education and medical needs of their minor child, while Mehta did not shell out anything.
“There can be no doubt that the responsibility to provide maintenance and shelter to a minor child is equal for both the parents,“ the judge added.
Seema had approached the court, seeking maintenance for herself and her child from Mehta. She sought interim relief, claiming Mehta had allowed the leave and licence agreement of their matrimonial flat in Pune to lapse in order to harass her. She was then forced to find a new house and paid a rent of Rs 9,000 per month. Mehta claimed Seema and the child lived in her brother's flat and did not pay rent.The HC, however, disagreed and said Seema's brother was not under any legal obligation to provide her residence gratis.
(Names changed to protect the family's identity)
No comments:
Post a Comment