Delhi High Court stresses on father's responsibilities as caregiver when custodial mother is working

The Delhi High Court recently observed that the earning capacity of the working parent, whether husband or wife, in whose custody the minor children are, does not erase or diminish that parent‟s responsibility as a caregiver, who continues to bear the burden of shouldering the dual responsibility of earning as well as being the primary caregiver to the minor children.

"In such cases, the obligation of the father towards the minor children does not diminish merely because the wife has been forced to shoulder this dual responsibility", Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has said.

These observations came to be made by the High Court while dealing with a revision petition, filed by the husband seeking setting aside of the judgment passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide which the appeal filed by him under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was dismissed and the order passed by the MM (Mahila Court-01), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi was upheld. 

By said order, Trial Court had directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month, quantified at ₹10,000/- per month for each of the three minor children, to be deposited directly into the bank account of the wife.

Before the High Court, husband argued that he was financially incapable of paying interim maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month, as his monthly income was merely ₹9,000/-, which he earned while working as a homeopathic pharmacist. It was also contended that his wife was earning ₹34,500/- per month, which is substantially higher than his income. 

High Court was further told that fastening the entire responsibility of maintenance upon the husband, despite the wife earning substantially more than him, was contrary to settled legal principles. 

"While deciding petitions for grant of maintenance, courts cannot remain oblivious to the social realities prevailing in society, where financial arrangements within families are often structured in a manner that obscures the true income of a party. In cases where the material on record indicates a deliberate understatement of income, a comparative analysis of prior financial disclosures and the present stand taken before the Court, when tested against surrounding circumstances, may legitimately raise serious doubts regarding the veracity of a party's assertions about income," the bench noted.

The argument of the husband that, despite earning about ₹34,000/-, the wife is unjustifiably claiming maintenance for the children, which reflects misuse of the laws of maintenance and a sense of entitlement as a woman, was rejected outrightly by the High Court.

"The conduct of the wife herein, who is a working woman, shows that she is compelled to shoulder a dual burden, i.e., of fulfilling her professional obligations alongside her responsibility of taking care of three minor children single-handedly. In such cases, a Court has to be cautious not to equate mere employment of the primary caregiver with financial sufficiency", the bench went on to observe.

High Court noted that the conduct of the wife in the present case, did not reflect entitlement, but a sense of responsibility towards the children born from the wedlock, i.e., the union of the husband as well as the wife. It also reflected not entitlement or dependency, but an effort to make the other partner realise his responsibility towards the children. "In a case such as the present one, a Court of law cannot burden, nor does the law mandate, that the working mother should be forced to exhaust herself physically, emotionally, and financially, and allow the father to take refuge behind selective, misleading disclosures about his income and technical pleas", the bench added. 

"The law of maintenance, while being applied by a Court of law, cannot be treated as a mere contest between two parties as to who earns less on paper, but requires an overall and holistic assessment as to who is bearing the real burden of upbringing, daily sustenance, and needs of growing children, as compared to one who is prima facie and evidently shirking his responsibilities by misleading the Court. Every case of maintenance decided also adjudicates and signifies that parenthood is a matter of responsibility and not of convenience of a party. Financial disclosures, therefore, must be adjudicated on the basis of the material on record and assessed in the background of social realities. The prime concern always remains the welfare of the children, as well as the dignity of a working woman, which should not be permitted to be compromised on the basis of prima facie artificial arrangements created by the father of the minor children and vice-versa, depending on the facts of the case," the judgment noted.

Accordingly, court has directed that a consolidated amount of ₹25,000/- per month towards their maintenance would adequately serve the ends of justice. "The respondent-wife, who is earning about ₹34,000/- per month, would also be contributing towards the expenses of the minor children. Even if her income is apportioned in a manner similar to that of the petitioner, she would be bearing expenses of at least ₹20,000/- per month towards the children. Apart from this financial contribution, the respondent-wife is also attending to the day-to-day needs of the minor children and is responsible for their physical care, supervision, schooling, health, and overall upbringing, which cannot be assessed in monetary terms and is priceless," the high court added.