The Punjab & Haryana High Court HC directed the petitioner to pay arrears of maintenance and monthly maintenance to his son which was ordered to do so. The court found that the petitioner had sufficient income by analysing the Income Tax Returns ( ITR ). The court found that the non-payment of maintenance to the minor son stating the reason as unemployment.
Pradeep Yadav, the petitioner challenged the order passed by District Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, whereby in a petition filed by the respondent/minor son under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner/father has been directed to pay final maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of petition i.e. 13.08.2015.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was married to the mother of the respondent on 11.02.2005. The respondent was born out of their wedlock. The mother of the respondent deserted the petitioner without any cause and the respondent was delivered at her parental home.
It was submitted that the petitioner was initially employed as a Clerk in ICICI Bank, Gurgaon in the year 2005, from where he was getting a salary of Rs.55,000/-. However, since 2012, the petitioner is unemployed. Accordingly, the petitioner is unable to pay the impugned maintenance. Moreover, the petitioner has also been declared Below Poverty Line (BPL) and even a certificate to this effect has been issued and as such, he is unable to pay the final maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent.
Per contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner never contributed anything towards the maintenance. Even now, the petitioner is in arrears of maintenance to the tune of about ₹2,50,000/- at least. It is denied that the petitioner has no source of income. It is contended that the petitioner has agricultural land and is also doing the work of property dealing.
The counsel for the petitioner has brought a demand draft only for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the name of the respondent, which is handed over to counsel for the respondent and a photocopy of the same is taken on record. The petitioner has also failed to file his Affidavit of Assets and liabilities.
It was observed by the court that as the petitioner was contributing in no manner towards the maintenance of the respondent, as such, the respondent/minor son was constrained to file the present petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 13.08.2015, in which it was alleged that the petitioner was a property dealer since 2010; the petitioner was having agricultural land from which he is earning Rs.1.5 lakh per month.
Justice Nidhi Gupta observed that the mother of the respondent is single-handedly taking care of his day-to-day care and provision of amenities, his physical, mental, and emotional well-being, his educational and medical expenses, etc. The petitioner has exhibited a very uncooperative and irresponsible attitude in his categoric refusal to contribute towards the maintenance of his child.
While dismissing the petition, the court held that the relationship between the parties being admitted, the petitioner cannot absolve himself of his responsibility in maintaining his child. Mr. D.S. Matya appeared for the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Ghumman appeared for the respondent
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
