Sadhu Singh v. Sehajdeep Singh
!
"# $!%&'&"()
+ +
,++
+ +
+
) -. +* + +. + .
+/ 0&(& +&(1/ 12 03 *
!" # $ % ₹2,500/- per month to the respondent besides litigation expenses of ₹11,000/- has been assailed in this petition.
!"&&
' (# # %&" "₹10,000/- per month, alleging that the father had neglected, deserted and refused to maintain him. The father was able-bodied working as property dealer earning ₹30,000/- per month. 4* The father appeared and opposed the petition filing reply. He claimed that his marriage with mother of the child was dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of ) *(( vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2018 of learned District Judge, Bathinda. In that case, a sum of ₹1,40,000/- was paid to the mother as one-time settlement of permanent alimony i.e. past, present and future maintenance. Thus, nothing remained due to be paid. Neither the child nor his mother was
entitled to claim any kind of maintenance from the father, who remained unwell and had no other movable or immovable property, whereas, mother of the minor child was earning more than ₹15,000/- per month. The minor child examined his mother as AW1 and brought on record documents Ex.A1 to Ex. A16 pertaining to medical bills, school fees etc. The father on the other hand, examined himself as RW1 and tendered in evidence Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 the copy of judgment and decree dated 14.11.2018 of learned District Judge, Bathinda in the joint petition under Section 13-B of ) *((Ex.R3 to Ex.R6 being medical records of the father.
The only argument addressed by learned counsel for the father is that the father, already having paid up ₹1,40,000/- to mother of the minor child, was absolved of his liability to pay maintenance allowance, yet learned Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Bathinda illegally awarded maintenance of ₹2,500/- per month. * Copy of judgment dated 14.11.2018 of learned District Judge, Bathinda in case titled "Sarabjeet Kaur Vs. Sadhu Singh" is on record. Indeed, the father (respondent in that case) paid up ₹1,40,000/- to the child's mother towards her past, present and future maintenance, it was also agreed upon between parties that the minor child would remain in custody of the mother, who would be responsible to maintain and keep him.
.
& ' ₹1,40,000/- paid to mother of the minor child was towards her past, present and future maintenance. Notwithstanding the payment to the mother, the liability of the father to maintain the minor child would subsist, even if it had been agreed between the parties that the mother alone would be liable to maintain the child. The wife cannot contract away the right of maintenance of the minor child.'%% . "" % % & /" )% 0 1 ' % % &" !" # ₹ (
+, " % & '"% & ' %
"""& 2 ' " 6* "
+. + .