Pradeep Yadav Vs Pysharie Yadav (Punjab And Haryana High Court)
Introduction: The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled on a significant case involving the payment of maintenance to a minor son by his father, who claimed unemployment as a reason for non-payment. The case, Pradeep Yadav Vs Pysharie Yadav, highlights the court’s stance on the responsibilities of parents, regardless of their employment status, and emphasizes the importance of considering all sources of income, including immovable properties and potential earnings from various activities.
Case Background: The case originated from an order dated June 5, 2017, by the District Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, directing Pradeep Yadav (the petitioner) to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to his minor son from the date of the petition, August 13, 2015. The petitioner contested this order, citing his unemployment since 2012 after initially earning ₹55,000 per month as a clerk at ICICI Bank.
Petitioner’s Argument: Pradeep Yadav argued that he had no source of income and was unable to pay the maintenance. He pointed out that his former spouse, Pysharie Yadav, was well-educated (M.Sc. in Physics and B.Ed.) and employed as a Lecturer in Government Senior Secondary School, earning ₹55,000 per month. He contended that it was unjust to place the entire financial burden on him, especially since both parents share the responsibility of maintaining their child.
