Photographs And Biography Of Instagram Not Sufficient Proof Of Independent And Sufficient Income – Bombay High Court
Justice Bharati Dangre of the Bombay High Court while upholding the order of the Family Court, refused to modify the maintenance paid by the father to his major daughter.
The Court observed –
"…the photographs of instagram and her instagram biography is not sufficient to hold that she has independent and sufficient income."
In this case, the Petitioner was held liable to pay Rs. 25,000 per month towards the maintenance of his daughter who was a major. Aggrieved, by the order of the said order passed by the Family Court, the Petitioner approached the High Court by way of a Writ Petition and sought modification of the order based on the subsequent developments.
The Petitioner contended before the Court that his daughter is a major and completed her education and she is working and earning sufficiently for her own maintenance.
The Family Court while considering the aspect of 'subsequent developments' had held the settled position of law is to the effect that even when a daughter becomes major, she is entitled to maintenance from her father till her marriage and, as can be seen from the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, there is no embargo for the maintenance not being paid by the father in favor of the daughter, who is major.
The second ground for modification was that the daughter on her own earns a handsome income from her modeling career.
The High Court in this context held –
"After considering the evidence placed on record being, the printed copies of the photographs posted by his daughter in the social media like instagram and her instagram biography, where she has claimed that she earns an income of Rs.72 lakhs to Rs.80 lakhs, learned Judge, in my considered opinion, has rightly recorded that the photographs of instagram and her instagram biography is not sufficient to hold that she has independent and sufficient income."
The Bench also held that it is the habit of the youth of today, to project a glossy picture and post the same on the social media though its content may not always be true, thus the Court held –
"Since the petitioner's contention that his daughter's earning is Rs.72 lakhs to Rs.80 lakhs is based merely on his daughter's photographs posted in instagram and her instagram history, the learned Judge has rightly disbelieved the same in the absence of any independent evidence to be brought on record, to show her earnings."
Further, the Court also held, "Considering the earnings of the petitioner-husband and his responsibility to maintain his daughter, who was found to be without any source of income and, particularly, when she is prosecuting her career at Pearl Academy, which warranted huge fees to be incurred, the modification application was considered by the learned Judge, in the wake of the paraphrased "subsequent developments", on which the modification is sought, and rejected the same. I do not see any illegality or perversity, in the impugned order and upholding the same, the writ petition is rejected."
Accordingly, the Court rejected the Writ Petition and upheld the order of the Family Court.