Able-Bodied Person Cannot Avoid Maintenance By Pleading Unemployment: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a mere plea of unemployment cannot absolve an able-bodied and qualified individual of his obligation to maintain his minor children under Section 125 CrPC. The Court reiterated the principle that an able-bodied person is presumed to have the capacity to earn, and voluntary or unsubstantiated unemployment cannot be used to evade statutory responsibility. Applying this principle, the Court refused to interfere with the maintenance awarded to two minor children and dismissed both the father's challenge and the children's plea for enhancement.

Justice Alok Mahra was dealing with cross-revisions arising from an order of the Family Court, Haridwar directing the father to pay ₹6,500 per month to each of the two minor children.

The proceedings originated from an application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the minor children through their mother, alleging neglect and seeking maintenance. The Family Court, upon appreciation of the material on record, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of ₹6,500 per month to each child.

Aggrieved, the father challenged the award contending that it was beyond his financial capacity, while the children sought enhancement of the amount.

The father sought to assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that he was unemployed and financially incapable of paying the maintenance awarded. He contended that the Family Court failed to properly consider his financial condition and wrongly ignored the disclosed income of the mother.

It was further urged that the liability ought to have been apportioned between both parents, particularly in light of the mother's earnings. The father also raised objections to the grant of maintenance from the date of application.

On behalf of the minor children, it was contended that the father is a qualified and able-bodied person with sufficient earning capacity, who had deliberately concealed his true financial position. Emphasis was placed on the increasing educational and living expenses of the children.

It was further argued that the mere fact that the mother is earning cannot dilute the father's independent obligation to maintain his children, particularly when they are residing with her and she is bearing their day-to-day expenses.

At the outset, the Court reiterated that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature and aimed at preventing destitution of wives and children and not to punish the party. That the interference in revision is limited to cases of illegality or perversity, was also highlighted.

On the father's plea of unemployment, the Court examined the evidence on record, including his own admissions during cross-examination. The father admitted that he had been employed with a Tokyo based company under an offer reflecting a substantial monthly and annual CTC, with a take-home salary of around ₹64,000 per month. In this backdrop, the Court held that the plea of unemployment was not bona fide.

“It is a settled principle of law that a bald plea of unemployment cannot be accepted at face value, particularly when the person concerned is able-bodied, qualified and experienced. The revisionist is admittedly an MCA graduate with substantial work experience. In such circumstances, the plea that he is unable to earn on account of pending litigations is not acceptable. An able-bodied person is presumed to have the capacity to earn, and intentional or voluntary unemployment cannot be used as an excuse to avoid statutory responsibility”, the Court said in regards to the revisionist-father's contentions.

As regards the income of the mother, the Court noted that her earnings had been placed on record and considered by the Family Court. However, it reiterated that the earning of the mother does not absolve the father of his statutory and moral obligation to maintain his minor children. The obligation of the father is independent and continues so long as the children remain minors.

“The mere fact that the mother is earning does not absolve the father of his statutory and moral duty to maintain his minor children. The obligation of a father to maintain his children is independent and continues so long as the children are minors. Judicial precedents consistently hold that even where both parents are earning, the father cannot escape his responsibility, particularly when the children are residing with the mother and she is bearing the primary responsibility of their day-to-day care and upbringing”, the Court held.

The Court further rejected the contention that maintenance liability must be apportioned mathematically between parents, observing that Section 125 CrPC does not mandate such apportionment. The Family Court, it noted, had awarded a moderate amount after considering the financial position of both parties and the needs of the children.

The High Court held that the maintenance of ₹6,500 per month per child was reasonable and did not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

Accordingly, both the father's revision seeking reduction and the children's revision seeking enhancement were dismissed, and the order of the Family Court was affirmed.

Case Name: Dheeraj Kapoor v State of Uttarakhand and Ors with Ridhi Kapoor and Another v Dheeraj Kapoor

Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 626 of 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order