'Glossy' Instagram posts, biography not sufficient to prove 'handsome' income: Bombay high court

MUMBAI: "It is well known fact that it is the habit of the youth of today, to project a glossy picture and posting the same in the social media though its contents may not be always true," said Justice Bharati Dangre of Bombay high court last week while granting no relief to a father.
The Judge’s observations were in an order when she declined to interfere with a family court order directing a father to pay Rs 25,000 as maintenance to his daughter.
Justice Dangre said, since the father’s contention that his daughter’s earning is Rs.72 lakhs to Rs.80 lakhs is based merely on her photographs posted on Instagram and its history, the (family court) "Judge has rightly disbelieved the same in the absence of any independent evidence to be brought on record."
The HC said considering his earnings and "his responsibility to maintain his daughter, who was found to be without any source of income" and, particularly, when she is pursuing her career which "warranted huge fees to be incurred", the court has rejected his plea to reduce the maintenance amount to Rs 25,000.
"I do not see any illegality or perversity, in the impugned order(order under challenge) and upholding the same, the writ petition is rejected," said Justice Dangre.
The man and his wife had a marital discord since 2014 and in 2018 she had sought maintenance when family court directed him to pay Rs 25,000 per month from July 2015 to his daughter who was a major till disposal of main petition.
He moved the family court for modification based on "subsequent developments".
The family court order said the legal position is that "even when a daughter becomes major, she is entitled to maintenance from her father till her marriage and, as can be seen from the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, there is no embargo for the maintenance not being paid by the father in favour of the daughter, who is major."
His other grounds that she earns a "handsome income" were based on her social media posts which the HC said the family court has "rightly" said "her instagram biography is not sufficient to hold that she has independent and sufficient income."