A father has a greater obligation to maintain his family than the mother, a Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) court observed while ordering grant of maintenance to both wife and daughter. .Only when the father is economically weak and his wife is earning sufficiently well will the wife be obliged to share the maintenance expenses, the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge Tahir Khurshid Raina said. ."Fact remains that the obligation of father to cater (to) the needs of his children is on much higher side than that of mother. He is under moral, social, religious and legal sanction to maintain his family. His duty to maintain his family is an much higher pedestal. Only in a situation where he is economically weak and his wife is earning sufficiently well, in that situation she may be legally obliged to share the expenses, otherwise not," the court said..The court also said that interim maintenance does not mean that it has to simply enable the wife or daughter "to feed stomach", but it should enable them to live a reasonably dignified life. .Obligation of father to cater to the needs of his children is on much higher side than that of mother. He is under moral, social, religious and legal sanction to maintain his family.Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu.The court was hearing two revisions petitions, one filed by husband and other by his wife and daughter, challenging a July 7, 2020 order of interim maintenance passed by trial court. .The trial court had awarded Rs. 9000 per month to the daughter of Ashok Kumar in maintenance proceedings initiated against the husband/father by his wife Chanchla Devi and daughter Riya. The trial court has also observed that insofar as the wife was concerned, since she is a permanent government employee and not dependent for maintenance on her husband, hence, she is not entitled to maintenance from husband. .Ashok Kumar in his revision petition contended that the amount of maintenance granted to her daughter is on higher side since the court did not take into account the earning status of his wife who can also share the responsibility of maintenance of the daughter. Chanchala Devi and Riya also challenged the order arguing that rejection of the claim of Chanchala Devi (wife) for maintenance was incorrect and also that amount of maintenance awarded to the daughter, Riya is on the lower side.The claim of the husband that he is maintaining his old aged mother does not mean that he has to neglect his wife and daughter,Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu.Court set out three important issues while deciding the case:1. Whether an earning wife is entitled to maintenance from her earning husband?2. Whether the maintenance amount awarded to the daughter was properly assessed and awarded?3. Whether the maintenance amount has to be awarded from the date of filing application or date of order?.Regarding the first issue, the court noted that the husband was earning Rs. 70,000 per month while the wife was a "low level employee" in Rural Development Department."Once she has stated on affidavit that she is a low level govt employee , it was for her husband to bring on record that she is drawing sufficient monthly income which disentitles her for grant of any maintenance from him," the court said. The claim of the husband that he is maintaining his old aged mother does not mean that he has to neglect his wife and daughter, the court added . .Moreover, the court also said that interim maintenance can not be considered as mere sustenance amount but must be a reasonable sum which enable the wife and daughter to live a dignified life, at par with that of the husband or father as the case may be. "Interim maintenance does not mean that it has simply to enable the applicant to feed stomach, but to live reasonably well," the court held.Thus the order impugned does not sustain to the extent of denial of interim maintenance to the wife and accordingly she is held entitled for the same .."Interim maintenance does not mean that it has simply to enable the applicant to feed stomach, but to live reasonably well," the court held.Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu.On the second issue maintenance amount awarded to the daughter was properly assessed, the court examined the father's income and the requirements of the daughter. The daughter had claimed that she was a student of class 12 and her maintenance amount should be augmented from Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 20,000. The court said that this claim was not explicitly stated before the trial court. ."Fact remains that she was supposed to put in explicit terms as how much monthly tuition fee she has to pay to the school, how much expenses she incurs on her studies and if she is going for any extra classes for getting any coaching etc. That (sic) aspects should have also been specifically highlighted in the petition so that (the) Magistrate would have got (an) idea of the maintenance amount she requires for sustenance of her all needs. Once that was not available in the pleading , it is of course the guesswork which was to be made and rightly so done by the the Magistrate," the court said..The court also turned down the contention that the interim maintenance awarded to the daughter is on the higher side and that the mother should also be obligated to share the maintenance expenses of the daughter. .The father, the court observed, has a higher obligation than the mother to cater to the needs of the children. His duty to maintain his family is an much higher pedestal and only in a situation where he is economically weak and his wife is earning sufficiently well, she may be legally obliged to share the expenses, the court added. "In the instant case father is drawing Rs. 70,000/ salary , the fact which he has not specifically denied by any cogent documentary evidence and has to pay maintenance to his daughter. The mother's income is of low level," the court said rejecting the contention..Only in a situation where father is economically weak and his wife is earning sufficiently well, the wife may be legally obliged to share the expensesAdditional Sessions Judge, Jammu.On the third issue, the court ruled that interim maintenance has to be awarded from the date of application and not date of order. .Advocate Avinay Sharma appeared on behalf of the petitioner husband while advocate Rajeev Chargotra represented the wife and daughter..Advocate Avinay Sharma was pleading on behalf of the petitioner/respondent namely Mr. Ashok Kumar, while Advocate Rajeev Chargotra was pleading on behalf of the respondent/petitioner..[Read Order]
