Woman’s Employment Doesn’t Absolve Her Of Burden Of Child-Rearing; Father’s Obligation Doesn’t Diminish: Delhi High Court

The High Court was considering a revision petition filed by the petitioner-husband seeking the setting aside of the judgment of the Sessions Court vide which the appeal filed by him under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) was dismissed, and the order of the Trial Court was upheld.

The Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “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”

“The Court remains conscious of the fact that the earning of the wife and her assumption of responsibility of taking care of three minor children cannot be construed as an admission that the needs of the children are being adequately met or that the father stands absolved of his parental obligations. The Court is also mindful of the social reality that the fact of a woman‟s earning or employment does not eliminate or absolve her of the financial, emotional, social, and other burdens connected with child-rearing”, it added.

Advocate Amit Gupta represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Shaini Bhardwaj represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnised in Delhi according to Hindu rites and customs. Three children, i.e. two daughters and one son, were born out of the said wedlock. It was the case of the respondent-wife that, soon after the marriage, the petitioner-husband and his family members started subjecting her to harassment on account of persistent demands for dowry. It was also alleged that, within a few weeks of marriage, the respondent was allegedly pressurised to seek employment and was compelled to hand over her entire salary to the petitioner and his family members. The respondent narrated several such instances of physical, emotional, and economic abuse, which ultimately constrained her to initiate proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, along with an application under Section 23.

The Trial Court directed the petitioner-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 respondent-wife. The Husband’s appeal was dismissed, which led to the filing of the instant petition before the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the respondent-wife has been residing at her parental home and has the custody of all three minor children. The petitioner-husband does not have the custody of any of the children. The day-to-day responsibility of their upbringing, including their education, medical needs, and general welfare, was upon the respondent-wife. As per the Bench, the husband’s plea of earning only ₹9,000 per month was further belied by the bank statements placed on record. The Bench also noticed that the petitioner husband had taken inconsistent stands with respect to his residence and family ties.

“ In these circumstances, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Court, that the petitioner has not made a full disclosure of his income and has sought to understate his earning capacity, cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that for the purpose of deciding interim maintenance, his income can be reasonably assessed at ₹40,000/- per month, considering his ITRs available on record, as noted in paragraph 11 above”, it held.

“It is well-settled that the obligation to maintain minor children is not only a statutory duty but also a legal, moral, and social responsibility of both parents. Maintenance of children is not confined to bare subsistence; it encompasses their overall upbringing, education, health, and standard of living, consistent with the means and status of the parents”, the order read.

The Bench was of the view that the conduct of the wife, who is a working woman, showed that she was 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 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”, it added.

Thus, affirming the findings of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court on the issue of responsibility of the petitioner-husband to maintain the minor children, the Bench modified the impugned orders to the limited extent that the interim maintenance payable by the petitioner-husband towards the three minor children shall stand reduced from ₹30,000/- per month to ₹25,000/- per month. The Bench thus upheld the impugned orders with such modifications in the quantum of interim maintenance.

Cause Title: AB v. CD (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:12027)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Amit Gupta, Prateek Mehta, Kshitij Vaibhav, Muskan Nagpal

Respondent: Advocates Shaini Bhardwaj, Rukhsar, Vedic Thukral

Click here to read/download Order