Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf Mangera – Q&A Financial Maintenance of Children Whose Obligation is It

If the government is giving money, funds to low income disabled

families, will it? Will it lift the responsibility of the husband?

Or the father to earn for the family? Yeah, that's a good

question. That's a good question. What it is, is that

to earn for the children and for the family, the money that has to

be used first, technically speaking, right is their money. So

if a child, right, if a child has his own money, like inheritance,

for example, then you could actually spend from that child's

money on them on their own clothes, and everything is not a

primary responsibility on the father, the primary responsibility

comes from the child's own, but generally, children don't have

their own money. So that's why it has to be provided. Now, if the

government is providing it, then technically speaking, you don't

have to tell the husband this, but they are absolved of this

responsibility. Because the main purpose and objective is that the

child the children is looked after. So if they're being looked

after, by any source, any funding, then the husband, then the

husbands responsibility is fulfilled. So basically, what I'm

trying to say is that it's not an obligation on the husband, that he

must fulfill it, despite the fact that there's other money there.

Right? With the wife, though, during the marriage, and during

the eight day period, the husband has to pay her, even if she's got

her own money, he's responsible for that. When it comes to

children, if they've got their own money, you could technically use

that money, right to fulfill the responsibility when it comes to if

they don't have the money, but somebody else is providing that

money, then technically, the husband's responsibility is being

fulfilled. So you don't have to tell your husbands that if you

don't want to, and you want them to earn for you, but the idea is

that yes, the husband's responsibility is fulfilled, if

the money is being received from elsewhere, because the main

objective is that somebody is, is voluntarily I mean, the government

voluntarily is providing. So at hamdulillah they've been provided,

that's the main thing, you know, what would be the extra four? Of

course, it may not seem nice for the husband I know of fathers who

have been divorced and who insist on paying and giving to their

wives, sorry for their children, right, even if they've been cut

off, because they want to show that they are the father, right.

So that in the future, that child is not going to say that you

deserted me, right. So there is that aspect of it, but if the

children are being supplied, and you know with sufficient, then

that should be sufficient. The husband is not not then obliged,

generally speaking.