I found a very important judgement of shared responsibility of both parents in maintainence of child when both are earning.


Check this out.

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6069 of 2006 at Allahabad : Vineet Sehgal Vs. State Of U.P. & Others

AFR
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6069 of 2006
Petitioner :- Vineet Sehgal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Rishi Chadha
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Suman Jaiswal
Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.

Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and
Sri Anand Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 as well
as learned AGA appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2.

This revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the
order dated 7.10.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court,
Meerut in Case No. 484 of 2003, Sapna Sehgal Vs. Vineet Sehgal
under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the application for maintenance in
respect of wife Smt. Sapna Sehgal was rejected but was allowed in
respect of Aryaman-minor son of opposite party no. 3. It was directed
by the Family Court that Aryaman shall be entitled to Rs. 6000/- per
month as maintenance allowance. ¾ of the amount shall be paid by his
father-revisionist and 1/4th of the amount shall be born by his mother opposite
party no. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the father- Vineet Sehgal has
come before this Court by means of this revision.

The facts are that opposite party no. 3- Smt. Sapna Sehgal filed an
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist claiming
maintenance for herself and her minor son- Aryaman with the
allegations that they were married on 2.10.2000 and Aryaman was
born on 16.9.2001. The relations between the spouses were not
cordial, she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by her husband
and on 11.6.2001, she was turned out of matrimonial home and she
was living with her father. She claimed a sum of Rs. 11000/- per month
as maintenance allowance for herself and her minor son.
The revisionist filed his written statement before the Family Court
denying the allegations made in the application and contested the
case. Parties led evidence and ultimately the claim of opposite party
no. 3 was declined in respect of herself but the child was granted
maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per month as
aforesaid.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that considering the
income of the revisionist, the amount of maintenance awarded to the
child is highly excessive. This submission is hotly contested by learned
counsel for opposite party no. 3. The revisionist was an Deputy
Commandant in BSF and according to the finding recorded by the
family court, he was, at the relevant time, was earning more than Rs.
25000/- per month. Opposite party no. 3- Smt. Sapna Sahgal is also
employed as a teacher and after deductions, she was getting more
than Rs.. 8000/- per month.

Considering the income of the opposite party no. 3, learned trial court
did not award any maintenance allowance to opposite party no. 3 for
herself. Opposite party no. 3 has not challenged the said finding by
filing any revision. This aspect of the case need not detain us any
further.

As far as the child- Aryaman is concerned, his age was about five
years when the case was decided by the family court and now his age
must be about 11 years. Since both his parents are earning members,
both of them are responsible to contribute towards his maintenance.
Both the parties are persons of status and likewise the child is also
entitled to have education and other facilities of the same standard.
The amount awarded by family court i.e. 6000/- per month cannot be
said to be excessive by any standard, if we keep in mind the income of
his parents. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court has rightly
apportioned the liability of the father and mother in the ratio 3 : 1, the
father has to contribute Rs. 4500/- and the mother has to contribute
Rs. 1500/- per month for the maintenance of their child.
Considering all the facts and circumstances, I find that the order
passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court is fully justified and
does not call for any interference by this Court. The impugned order
does not suffer from any illegality and the revision lacks merit and is
liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the revisionist invited the attention of the Court
towards the order dated 3.7.2010 wherein certain adverse
observations were made by the court against the conduct of the
revisionist. These observations were made by the court as at that
stage the court was trying to bring about a compromise between the
parties and the court felt that satisfactory progress was not being made
but now the case is coming to an end and it appears that parties are
unable to bridge their differences and the observations made by this
Court in order dated 3.7.2010 are neither necessary nor required for
the disposal of this revision. The observations made in the order dated
3.7.2010 are hereby recalled.

During pendency of the revision, the revisionist has paid a sum of Rs.
1,80,000/- to opposite party no. 3 towards the maintenance of the
minor child- Aryaman before this Court. The said amount shall be
adjusted in execution proceeding.
With these observations, the revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.4.2012
KU

If both parents are earning then it is joint duty of both parents to maintain their children in ratio of their salaries and not only father as held by Hon’ble court

It is published in civil court cases journal
Vineet Sehgal vs State of UP: 2012(4) CCC 726

Child can claim maintenance from mother u/s 125 crpc ..delhi
If both parents are earning then It is joint duty of both parents to maintain children
Children who are in custody of father can claim maintenance from mother under 125 Crpc

Sarita jain vs Master Rishab jain: 2016 (2) CCC 688 ( Delhi HC)

Very good judgement by Justice S P Garg

If both parents are earning then it is joint duty of both parents to maintain their children in ratio of their salaries and not only father as held by Hon’ble supreme court in
Padmja Sharma Vs Ratan Lal Sharma : AIR 2000 SC 1398 .
Similar View was taken by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in
CRM-M-24011-2010 (O&M) of
Shikha Vij Vs Devanshi Vij
decided on 06.09.2014

If both parents are earning then it is joint duty of both parents to maintain their children in ratio of their salaries and not only father as held by Hon’ble Rajasthan High court court recently in

Dinesh kumar vs shobha Chouhan : 2019 (3) CCC 212 Rajasthan H C

CCC = Civil Court Cases (Journal)