Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that his monthly income was only ₹12,000 and that it was not possible for him to pay ₹13,500 as maintenance for his children, particularly when he has to support his ailing parents as well.
He further argued that the mother of the children was a government teacher who drew a handsome salary. As such, the liability to maintain the children cannot be fastened upon him alone, he added.
The High Court, however, noted that the petitioner had not submitted any evidence before the trial court to show that he only earned ₹12,000 per month.
On the other hand, the Court noted that it was undisputed that he was a qualified engineer who had earlier worked abroad.
The Court was also not convinced by a claim that the petitioner had given all of his earnings to his wife who used it to buy some property. There was no evidence led in the trial court to show this, the Court found.
The High Court proceeded to hold that it could not re-appreciate the evidence led before the trial court. Therefore, it dismissed the petition.
Source: Barandbench
