In a landmark judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled that a father is liable to maintain his child, even if the mother is earning enough. The judgment clarifies that the financial capability of the mother does not negate the paternal responsibility, thus reinforcing the principle that the welfare of the child is paramountThe case has been based upon a dispute in which the father argued that since he was not to be taxed for his wife's maintenance, he should not need to pay for the child from his pocket either since his wife was earning a good salary. The Court rejected that argument and pointed out to the father that his duties towards the child's support do not cease with such an argument, regardless of the wife's financial position. The court elucidated that child support, as opposed to providing only elementary needs, is actually "general welfare," including such aspects as quality education and health care and standard living in accordance with the dignity of the family. His excellency justice, while unnamed, established that the rights of a child supersede both parent's rights, and that neither of them is exempt to share the responsibilities for nurturing and well-being of the child. Such provisions relate to the well-established legal precedents and statutes such as Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) relating to maintenance of wives, children, as well as parents. This provision ensures even a child has rights to be maintained by the father irrespective of the mother's ability to do it financially. The Court pointed out that such denial could violate the child's rights and also accrue economic inequality that would negatively affect the child's development. It would fall under previous judgments of the courts as the High Court insisted that financial responsibility cannot avoid equitability and always must be divided. The fact that the mother has a big amount coming into her pockets can't relieve the father's liability. This judgment also represents a broader view: societal norms are evolving into those where both parents expect the other to raise a child while not letting a financially independent parent become a basis for the other parent not to take responsibility. This judgment reminds one of the principles of equity as well as the role parents assume when it comes to matters related to the welfare and upbringing of children. That is, both parties concerned with the future of a child are obliged to share, without regard to any differentiation in earning capacity between their own persons. Hence the judgment adds strength to that understanding: child maintenance can only be a joint or firm duty so as not to compromise children's entitlement towards supportive and balanced care for upbringing..