In the fitness of things, the Delhi High Court has been quite upfront to assert emphatically, elegantly and eloquently in a well-written, well-articulated, well-reasoned and well-worded judgment titled Fateh Saharan vs Rohit Saharan in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 14/2021 & CM APPL. 26971/2021 : 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 102 that was delivered finally on January 14, 2022 wherein it was clearly, cogently and convincingly observed by a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh that a minor child is entitled to claim maintenance for his upbringing by the father and that such a child is not bound by the divorce settlement regarding maintenance between his parents. Very rightly so. The Bench was dealing with an appeal filed by a minor child being aggrieved by the grant of interim maintenance by the Family Court at Rs 15,000 per month.
To start with, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored in oral by Justice Vipin Sanghi for a Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of himself and Justice Jasmeet Singh sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The appellant is the minor child of the respondent. He preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by the grant of interim maintenance by the Family Court at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month. We have, by our order dated 22.04.2021, directed the respondent to pay Rs. 25,000/- per month to the appellant, considering that his school fee itself is in that range.”
Most remarkably, the Bench then finds not even an iota of doubt to observe candidly, cogently and convincingly in para 2 that, “We may observe that when the respondent’s spouse i.e., the mother of the appellant obtained the divorce by mutual consent, the maintenance was fixed in respect of the appellant minor child at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. It goes without saying that the appellant being a minor, is not bound by that settlement, and he is entitled to claim maintenance for himself for his upbringing from the respondent i.e., his father.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then finds it imperative to mention in para 3 that, “Before us, the appellant has raised the issue that the respondent has not truly and correctly disclosed his income. From his Income Tax Returns (ITRs) filed before us, it appeared that apart from agricultural income - which was the only income claimed to have been earned by the respondent, he has been deriving rental income from a property, which is separate from the agricultural income.”
As it turned out, the Bench then envisages in para 4 that, “The respondent was required to file an affidavit to explain the same and he has filed an affidavit dated 03.12.2021 claiming that the land has been leased out by the respondent to a tenant, from which the rent has been derived, which is owned by the respondent’s father. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently challenged the averments made in the said affidavit by the respondent. The appellant claims that the respondent has deliberately mis-stated facts before this Court in this regard.”
As we see, the Bench then finds no difficulty in enunciating in para 5 that, “Considering the fact that the present appeal is directed against the fixation of the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month, which we have raised to Rs. 25,000/- per month, and the appellant’s petition is still pending consideration before the learned Family Court, we are inclined to relegate the parties to the learned Family Court to establish their respective claims/ defence before the learned Family Court, and to invite the final order from the learned Family Court.”
Most significantly, the Bench then holds in para 6 that, “We, therefore, dispose of this appeal with a direction to the respondent to continue to pay Rs. 25,000/- per month to the appellant till the disposal of the petition preferred by the appellant, or till further orders that the Family Court may pass. The right of the appellant to seek further enhancement, even at the interim stage, is preserved. No adjournments shall be sought by the parties, nor should either of the parties be granted any undue adjournments by the learned Family Court, and we request the learned Family Court to dispose of the petition pending before it under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 within the next one year. All rights and contentions of the parties, including those raised in the present appeal, are preserved and shall be examined by the learned Family Court.”
Furthermore, the Bench then makes it clear in para 7 that, “Both parties state that they shall produce complete copy of their respective Passports before the learned Family Court for its examination. The same shall be produced before the learned Family Court on the next date fixed before it, which we are informed, is 23.03.2022.
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 8 that, “The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”
To sum it up, the two Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh have made it indubitably clear in this commendable, cogent, composed and convincing judgment that a minor child is entitled to claim maintenance for his upbringing by the father and that such a child is definitely not bound by the divorce settlement regarding maintenance between his parents. So there should not be any more misgivings on it. The Delhi High Court has in simple, straight and powerful language made it absolutely clear that a father is bound to maintain his minor child and minor child is fully entitled to claim maintenance from his father for his upbringing as long as he is minor. This is what really forms the bottom-line also of this judgment. No denying it!Sanjeev Sirohi