Bombay High Court: Bharati Dangre, J. rejected a writ petition which was filed by the husband, being aggrieved of the order passed by the Family Court wherein petitioner-husband had sought some modifications in an earlier order dated 01-09-2018 pleading that his daughter was major and had completed her education and working and earning sufficiently for her own maintenance which came to be rejected.
Marital discord among the couple led to the filing of an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente lite by the respondent-wife which was allowed, and the husband was held liable to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month towards maintenance of his daughter, who was major from 17-07-2015.
The Court considered the reasoning recorded by the Family Court that the settled position of law is to the effect that even when a daughter becomes major, she is entitled for maintenance from her father till her marriage and as far as second ground for modification was concerned, it is to the effect that she on her own, earns a handsome income from her modeling career which is just mentioned in her Instagram biography is not sufficient to hold that she has independent and sufficient income.
The Court further explained that it is a well-known fact that it is the habit of the youth of today to project a glossy picture and post the same in the social media though its contents may not always be true. The Court thus agreed that petitioner’s contention that his daughter’s earning is Rs.72 lakhs to Rs.80 lakhs merely on his daughter’s photographs posted in Instagram and her Instagram history cannot sustain.
The writ petition was rejected holding that there was no illegality or perversity, in the impugned order which was given considering the earnings of the petitioner-husband and his responsibility to maintain his daughter, who was found to be without any source of income.
[Anil Chandravadan Mistry v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1302, decided on 16-06-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr Anand Mishra and Mr Ashok M. Saraogi, Advocate, for the petitioner;
Ms Prabha U. Badadare, Advocate, for respondent 2.
*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
