The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently stated that a father has both a legal and moral duty to support his minor children, regardless of the mother's employment status and independent income.

The bench comprising, Justice Sanjay Dhar emphasized that a mother being employed does not relieve a father of his obligation to support his children. The Court made this observation in a case where a man claimed he lacked sufficient income to provide maintenance for his minor children.

The man also argued that his estranged wife, the mother of the children, was a working woman with sufficient income to care for the children. However, the Court rejected this argument.

"It is the legal as well as moral obligation of the petitioner being the father of the respondents (minor children) to maintain them. It is true that mother of the respondents is a working lady and she has her own income but that does not absolve the petitioner, being the father of the respondents, of his legal and moral responsibility to maintain his children. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that because mother of the respondents is earning, therefore, he cannot be directed to pay maintenance, is without any substance," the Court said.

The man filed a petition challenging a magistrate court's order requiring him to pay ₹4,500 as maintenance for each of his three children. After his challenge to the maintenance order was dismissed by a sessions court, he approached the High Court. Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that his monthly income was only ₹12,000, making it impossible for him to pay ₹13,500 as maintenance for his children, especially given that he also had to support his ailing parents.

He further contended that the children's mother was a government teacher with a substantial salary, implying that the responsibility of maintaining the children should not rest solely on him. However, the High Court observed that the petitioner had not provided any evidence before the trial court to substantiate his claim of earning only ₹12,000 per month.

He further contended that the children's mother was a government teacher with a substantial salary, implying that the responsibility of maintaining the children should not rest solely on him. However, the High Court observed that the petitioner had not provided any evidence before the trial court to substantiate his claim of earning only ₹12,000 per month.