Father Cannot Avoid Duty To Maintain Minor Child Due To Mother's Income Or Personal Liabilities: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a father cannot evade his statutory obligation to maintain his minor child under Section 125 CrPC on the ground that the mother is earning or by citing personal financial liabilities such as loan repayments or family responsibilities. The Court reiterated that the duty to maintain a minor child stands on a higher pedestal and voluntary financial commitments cannot override this obligation. On this basis, the Court upheld an order directing payment of ₹8,000 per month as interim maintenance.

Justice Ashish Naithani dismissed a criminal revision filed against an order of the Family Court, Roorkee granting interim maintenance to a minor child.

The case arose from proceedings under Section 125 CrPC initiated by the mother of a minor child seeking maintenance. The Family Court had allowed the application for interim maintenance and directed the father to pay ₹8,000 per month from the date of filing of the application.

Challenging this order, the father approached the High Court contending that both parents were employed in government service, the father in CRPF and the mother in CISF, and therefore the entire burden of maintenance ought not to have been placed upon him. He also relied on deductions from his salary towards loan repayments and other family responsibilities, including support of aged parents and siblings.

The revisionist argued that the quantum of maintenance was excessive in light of his financial liabilities and that the Family Court had failed to properly consider the income of the mother, who had not disclosed complete details.

On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the child that the father, being a permanent government employee with a stable income, was under a statutory obligation to maintain his minor child, and that the amount awarded was reasonable considering the needs of the child.

The Court noted at the outset that the paternity of the child was admitted, and therefore the statutory obligation of the father to maintain the minor child under Section 125 CrPC stood established.

Dealing with the contention regarding the mother's income, the Court held that the earning of the mother does not ipso facto absolve the father of his obligation. While the financial capacity of both parents may be relevant in determining the quantum, it does not dilute the primary responsibility of the father.

“It is settled that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social justice legislation intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy. The provision has to be interpreted liberally in favour of dependents. A minor child is entitled to be maintained in a manner commensurate with the status of the parents. The contention that the mother is also earning does not ipso facto absolve the father of his statutory obligation. The father cannot avoid his responsibility merely because the mother is employed. However, it is equally true that while fixing the quantum of maintenance, the Court must consider the financial capacity of both parents so that the burden is fair and reasonable”, the Court said.

The Court further held that voluntary liabilities such as loan repayments cannot override the right of a minor child to maintenance. Similarly, responsibilities towards parents and siblings, though relevant, do not eclipse the statutory duty owed to a minor child.

Considering the income of the father and the needs of the child, including educational, nutritional and medical expenses, the Court found that the amount of ₹8,000 per month could not be said to be excessive.

Moreover, it also upheld the grant of maintenance from the date of application, observing that such discretion is statutorily vested in the Court and no perversity was demonstrated. It further emphasised that revisional jurisdiction is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence in the absence of illegality or perversity.

Consequently, finding no illegality or perversity in the order of the Family Court, the High Court dismissed the revision and affirmed the direction to pay ₹8,000 per month as interim maintenance to the minor child.

The Court also clarified that the interim maintenance is provisional and subject to final adjudication.

Case Name: Deepak Kumar v State of Uttarakhand

Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 686 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order