Right of child independent, can’t be subjected to disputes between spouses: Uttarakhand High Court

Case

The couple got married on May 13, 2012 and had a daughter.

The couple started having trouble in their marriage, following which the wife moved out of her matrimonial home along with the minor daughter and began living separately.

The woman moved the family court, alleging that her estranged husband had refused to provide towards the upkeep of the daughter and her despite having sufficient means.

A family court in Dehradun directed the man to pay Rs 10,000 maintenance towards the wife and Rs 8,000 for the daughter. The man, however, challenged the direction in the high court.

Arguments

Counsel for the man submitted that the family court failed to consider the fact that wife had not established any justifiable cause for living separately.

He contended that the family court proceeded to fix maintenance without any documentary proof of income of the man which beyond his paying capacity.

The counsel urged that his aged parents suffering from ailments require support from the man whose financial condition deteriorated after the Covid 19 lockdown period.

Opposing these submissions, the counsel for the wife and daughter informed the court that the family court’s findings are neither perverse nor illegal.

He said that the wife has no stable or sufficient income and vague assertions regarding her taking tuitions to earn money are not supported by any evidence.

The counsel further said that the right of the minor child to maintenance is absolute and independent.

He added that the quantum awarded is aligned with living costs of the present times.

Observations

Upholding the verdict of the family court, the high court said that the amount awarded does not appear to be “arbitrary or shockingly excessive”, in view of costs of living in the present times and the needs of the wife and daughter.

The court said that the verdict “reflects proper application of mind” and “does not suffer from perversity, illegality, or material irregularity”.

“Educational qualification or potential earning capacity of the wife does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance”, the court said.

The court rejected the plea of the man that the wife left her matrimonial home without sufficient cause.

Taking note that interference at the revisional stage would amount to re-appreciation of evidence and substitution of discretion, which is impermissible, the court said the criminal revision filed by the man “lacks merit”.

Considering the man’s plea regarding financial hardship and responsibility towards his aged parents, the court said while such factors are relevant, those do not absolve him of his statutory obligation, particularly when no convincing material is produced to establish financial incapacity.

“Interference is permissible only where the order suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or material irregularity resulting in miscarriage of justice,” the bench noted.

Further stating that Section 125 (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents) CrPC is a piece of social welfare legislation and its object is not to adjudicate matrimonial rights, the bench said the provision is there to prevent “destitution and vagrancy” by compelling a person having sufficient means to support those who are dependent upon him.

The court also said that the expression “unable to maintain herself” does not mean absolute destitution but a situation where the wife does not have sufficient means to maintain herself.