Observing that it is the fundamental duty of every parent to provide opportunities for education to his child, the Madras High Court Bench here has come down upon an urologist for trying every trick in the book to avoid payment of monthly maintenance amount of Rs.12,000 to his school-going daughter as directed by a family Court in Tirunelveli on September 1.
Dismissing a criminal revision case filed by the doctor challenging the lower court order, Justice S. Vimala said the case had been filed unmindful of the fact that he had a constitutional obligation to educate his child since 2002 when clause (k) was introduced to Article 51A, making it mandatory for parents and guardians to provide opportunities for education to children between six and 14 years of age.
Rejecting the doctor’s contention that the quantum determined by the family court was too high and beyond his economic capacity to pay, the judge said: “This is a case where the father…a reputed doctor visiting various hospitals and owning many varieties of cars besides having vast extent of properties at his disposal, has come forward to say it would be possible to pay only Rs.2,000 per month to his daughter.
“The cost of living and cost of education coupled with other requirements of the growing child cannot be said that it would be only Rs.12,000 a month. Even a single dress for a girl child, nowadays, costs Rs.12,000. It is not in dispute that the child is in physical custody of the mother and nurturing and mentoring the child is her responsibility… Forgetting all this, the husband has made a claim that mother should also pay Rs.6,000.”
Ms. Justice Vimala also pointed out that the petitioner had taken pains to obtain a certificate from a Village Administrative Officer to prove that his estranged wife, also a doctor, was earning between Rs.500 and Rs. 2,500 every day by attending to patients at her private clinic.
However, he had not produced any document or other materials to prove his own income.
The judge pointed out that during the course of examination before the family court, the doctor had claimed that he had nothing but a stethoscope in his clinic. But when the court wanted to ascertain the veracity of his claim through appointment of an advocate commissioner, he turned volte face and conceded that he did own expensive medical equipment.
Pat for officer
Appreciating the presiding officer of the family court for having handled the maintenance case with all the sensitivity it required to be dealt with, the judge said: “This is a case where the court has to adopt all strategies to excavate the suppressed truth. The sensitivity with which this case has been handled by the Family Court Judge deserves appreciation.”
Dismisses criminal revision case filed by doctor challenging lower court order
