Sunil vs Nimish. Revision Petition Family Court No. 197/2014 decided on 17 November 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354033/1/RPFC197-14-17-11-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: Learned Judge found that petitioner’s mother has established that respondent has willfully neglected and refused to maintain his child.
This is an interesting case to address the question whether a father can shirk his responsibility from maintaining his minor son under the garb of doing Coolie job.
It’s no secret that being a parent is one of the most challenging roles in the world. The relationship between a parent and their child is a unique bond that nurtures the holistic growth and development of a child. It lays the foundation for their behavior, personality, traits and values.
Strengthening the parent-child relationships requires work, mutual understanding and efforts. Parenting is a tough job, but by maintaining a close relationship and open communication with your children, parents can stay connected to them during all stages of life.
A Hindu is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife, his minor sons, his unmarried daughters and his aged parents, whether he possess any property or not. The obligation to maintain these relations is personal, legal and absolute in character and arises from the very existence of the relationship between the parties.
It is needless to observe that a father is under a personal obligation to maintain his minor child. Hence, factors like unemployment, earning a meager income can’t be an excuse for not maintaining wife and children. He cannot shirk his responsibility from maintaining the family, in particular, his minor son under the garb of doing a coolie job.
It is perhaps well to observe that the power to make an order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is discretionary. This Court find it necessary to say only this much that High Court in exercising its revisional powers should not interfere with the discretion of a Judge acting within his jurisdiction unless the Court is clearly satisfied that he was wrong.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 