Fathers duty bound to maintain minor children; denial of visitation rights no excuse: Madras HC

The Madras High Court recently observed that a father is duty-bound to maintain the minor child/ children when there is a matrimonial dispute between the spouses and denial of visitation rights to him is not a ground to grant exemption from the payment of such maintenance.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam observed thus while passing orders in a case transfer plea moved by a woman. During the course of the hearing in the plea, it had come to the notice of the court that the woman's husband had not been paying the interim maintenance to couple's minor child who was in the custody of the mother at present.

It was the contention raised by the counsel of the husband that he is willing to take care of the minor child but the wife is not allowing him to see the child, and therefore, he is not in a position to pay the interim maintenance.

The counsel reiterated that unless the wife permits him to visit the child, he will not be able to pay the interim maintenance.

To this, the court reprimanded the husband for his approach and said, "Such an approach of the respondent, who is a Public Servant, at no circumstances, be encouraged by this Court".

Court observed that parents are duty-bound to maintain their minor children and as was the case in the present matter, the 11 months old female child has to be taken care of by the father, who is the natural guardian and an earning member.

In the present matter, the couple got married in 2020 and out of that wedlock one female child was born. Due to misunderstandings between them, the couple started living separately and the woman went back to her parents' house in Tiruchirappalli.

Thereafter, the husband filed a case for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court at Poonamallee and the woman sought its transfer to the Family Court at Tiruchirappalli.

The husband raised an objection to the woman's plea stating that she is a Dentist and practicing and therefore, she is capable of contesting the case filed by him at Poonamallee.

During the hearing, it was brought to the court's notice that the husband was not even paying any interim maintenance even to the minor girl child.

The court held that the husband had to share the maintenance along with the wife for the livelihood of the child.

Regarding the fact that no application had been filed for interim maintenance in the present matter, the court opined that "even in the absence of any application, the Courts are bound to consider grant of interim maintenance in the interest of the minor children and to protect their livelihood, which is their fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution".

"Remedy of maintenance is the measure of social justice as envisaged under the Constitution to prevent the wife and the children from falling into destitution and vagrancy. Preamble and Article 39 and 15(3) of the Indian Constitution envisage social justice and positive State action for empowerment of women and children," the court said.

Accordingly, while allowing the woman's plea for transferring the case, court directed the husband to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month to his minor daughter on or before the 10th day of every calendar month.

Case Title: P.Geetha v. V.Kirubaharan