Dad’s maintenance for child can’t cover just 2 meals: HC

◗ In his appeal, the man claimed he was earning between ` 15,00020,000 per month and had the liability to take care of his ailing father

A child’s right to maintenance is not restricted to his/ her father paying for two daily meals only, but must be determined on the basis of benefits he/ she would have enjoyed as if he/ she was living with his/ her parents, a Delhi court has said.

The observation of the court came, while directing a man to pay ` 12,000 per month to his estranged wife for maintaining their eight- yearold son.

Additional Sessions Judge Sanjiv Jain rejected the appeal filed by the man against a magisterial court order directing him to pay ` 12,000 towards maintenance of the child and ` 6,000 to wife for her expenses every month in a domestic violence case lodged by her.

“The scope of his ( father’s) duty is to be regulated directly in relation to the money, status that he enjoys. The right to maintenance of a child from his father cannot be restricted to two meals a day, but must be determined on the basis of benefit, status and money that the child would have enjoyed as if he was living with the family, including the mother and father,” the judge said.

The court accepted the contention of the woman, who got married in 1998, that she was beaten and tortured by her husband as their relationship got strained after he developed a relationship with their house maid after six years of their marriage.

It also said that just because there was no medico- legal case for each time she was beaten does not mean she was not tortured.

“It is true that there is no medico- legal case to support the allegations of the woman as to the incident of beating but it does not mean that no incident of beating had taken place or for every incident of beating, there should be the medico legal case,” the court said.

In his appeal against the magisterial court order, the man claimed that he was earning between ` 15,000- 20,000 per month and had the liability to take care of his ailing father. The high court, however, said that the trial court has rightly assessed the income of the husband to be more than ` 50,000 per month as fitness trainer.