The liability and responsibility of the father to preserve the child proceeds till the child/son accomplishes the age of majority, the Supreme Court watched in a judgment dissolving marriage of a couple.
“It too cannot be disputed that the child features a right to be kept up as per the status of his father”, the Court added.
Further, the court said that a child ought to not be made to endure due to debate between his parents. In this case, the spouse had drawn closer the Apex Court against the High Court judgment that rejected her offer against the judgment of Family Court dissolving the marriage on the ground of pitilessness and departure. She asked the court to cancel the discoveries against her on “pitilessness” Taking note of the truthful angles, the seat comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna watched thus:
Be that as it may, considering the reality that both, appellant-wife and respondent-husband are not remaining together since May, 2011 and thus it can be said that there’s irretrievable breakdown of marriage between them. It is additionally detailed that the respondent-husband has as of now re-married. Hence, no valuable reason should be served to advance enter into the merits of the discoveries recorded by the courts underneath on “brutality” and ‘desertion by the appellant-wife. Hence, within the realities and circumstances of the case and in exercise of powers beneath Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the declare passed by the learned Family Court, affirmed by the High Court, dissolving the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband isn’t required to be impedance with on account of lost breakdown of marriage. The court included that the spouse cannot be cleared from his risk and obligation to preserve his child till he accomplishes the age of majority.
“Whatever be the debate between the spouse and the spouse, a child ought to not be made to endure. The obligation and responsibility of the father to preserve the child proceeds till the child/son accomplishes the age of majority. It also cannot be debated that the child encompasses a right to be kept up as per the status of his father.
” Whereas affirming the separate proclaim, the seat coordinated the spouse to pay Rs.50,000/- per month with impact from December, 2019.
Case name: Neha Tyagi vs Lt. Col Deepak Tyagi
Citation: LL 2021 SC 700
Case no. and Date: CA 6374 OF 2021 | 1 Dec 2021
Coram: Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna