Criminal Trident Pack: IPC, CrPC and IEA by Sr. Adv. G.S Shukla and Adv. Raghav Arora
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Father Not Absolved From Responsibility Of Taking Care Of Child Even If Mother Is Earning: Allahabad HC

  • In Km. Ankita Dikshit vs State of UP and anr. the Hon’ble Allahabad HC has observed that a father is legally bound to maintain his child according to his status and lifestyle and it is irrelevant if the mother of the child is also working and earning. 
  • The Court was also of the opinion that a father cannot be absolved from this responsibility on the ground that the child does not show compassion towards him. 
  • The instant revision had been preferred to set aside the judgement and order of ADJ Family Court under section 125 CrPC, denying the grant of maintenance. It was also prayed that the Court orders Rs. 10,000 as interim maintenance to the revisionist and Rs. 40,00,000 for the purposes of marriage and education of the revisionist, during the pendency of the revision. 
  • It was argued by the opposite party no.2 (the husband) that his wife (mother of the revisionist) had sufficient income, due to which she is financially capable of maintaining the daughter (revisionist), who was 10 years old.
  •  
  • It was further submitted by the husband that he and his wife were living separately and that he wanted to bring his daughter (revisionist) to his house so that he can maintain her. 
  • The Court discarded the contentions put forth by the husband and observed that the finding of the lower Court that the revisionist was not showing emotional feelings and compassion towards her father on the dates when the case was called for hearing could not stand. It was the duty of the father to maintain his child. 
  • The HC was also of the opinion that the lower Court had committed an error while making an observation that the mother was working in H.A.L. Lucknow and thus, would have to maintain her daughter. 
  • The Hon’ble HC relied upon the decision given by the Apex Court in Rajnesh vs Neha (2021) SCC wherein it was held that both the working mother and the working father have to take responsibility of maintaining their child, and if the mother is working, it does not mean that the father would be absolved from taking responsibility of his child. 
  • The Court also took note of the fact that the salary slip deposited by the husband would indicate that his total salary was Rs. 78,825/- out of which he had deposited Rs. 45,000/- per month in provident fund just to show that he was getting a lessor income, so that the revisionist may not claim appropriate amount for maintenance. 
  • Thus, allowing the revision, the order of the lower Court was set aside and the Court was directed to pass a fresh order on the application for maintenance within a period of three months. 

Places Of Worship Act Not Applicable To 2020 Suit On Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Dispute: Mathura Court

  • A Mathura District Court has held that the suit to remove the Shahi Idgah Masjid, allegedly built on the land of Shrikrishna Janam Bhoomi is maintainable. 
  • With this, the Court allowed a revision plea filed by the Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust and overturned a civil Court order dismissing their suit in September, 2020. 
  • The Revisionists/petitioners sought cancellation of a compromise decree of 1974 entered into between the Shri Krishna Janamsthan Seva Sansthan and the Shahi Idgah Trust, on the basis of which a suit filed in 1964 was compromised, was fraudulent. It was stated that in the agreement, the Sansthan had conceded the property of the deity/trust in favour of the Trust Masjid Idgah. The same was challenged in the suit of 2020. 
  • The suit of 2020 was dismissed under order 7 Rule 11 on the ground that the plaintiffs had no right to file the suit. 
  • In the present case, the Mathura Court has also observed that the provisions of the The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, was not applicable to the present situation. It was observed that since the agreement and the subsequent compromise decree had been challenged by the plaintiff, the Places of Worship Act would not be applicable in light of section 4(3)(b) of the same. 
  • The Court observed that the Act does not debar those cases where the declaration is sought for a period prior to the coming into force of the Act in 1991 or, for the enforcement of the right which was recognised before the Act came into force. 
  • It is important to note that section 4(3)(b) of the Act clearly states that the bar under section 4 would not be applicable to those suits, appeals or other proceedings with respect to any matter referred to in sub-section 2 settled, disposed of or finally decided by a Court, tribunal or authority before the commencement of the Act. 
  • The Court also observed that a worshipper as the next friend of the deity can file a suit for the restoration and re-establishment of religious rights of the deity. 
  • It was also observed that at the stage of admission of the suit and while exercising powers under order 7 rule 11 of CPC, the Court cannot look into the merits of the case, and thus, the lower Court had committed an error in passing the order of 2020. 
  • Thus, while allowing the revision, the District Court directed the Trial Court to hear both the parties and to pass appropriate orders in light of the observations of the District Court. 
     
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  24  Report



Comments
img
Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query