The Uttarakhand High Court has clarified that a father’s statutory obligation to maintain his minor child remains absolute and cannot be avoided by pointing to the mother’s independent income or his own financial liabilities, such as loan repayments.
Justice Ashish Naithani upheld a Roorkee family court order that directed a man, currently serving in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), to pay ₹8,000 as monthly interim maintenance to his child. The court dismissed the man’s review petition, which challenged the lower court’s directive issued under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The case involved a dispute where both parents are government employees. While the father serves in the CRPF, the mother is employed in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The father had approached the High Court seeking to set aside the maintenance order, arguing that since the mother is gainfully employed, the financial responsibility for the child should not rest solely on him.
He further contended that his existing financial commitments—including personal loan repayments and the responsibility of supporting his parents and siblings—left him with limited resources to fulfill the maintenance order.
The mother’s counsel argued that as a permanent government employee, the father has a clear statutory and moral obligation to provide for his child.
In its analysis, the High Court acknowledged that while a mother’s income is a relevant factor in determining the quantum of maintenance, it does not “absolve the father of his primary responsibility” toward his offspring.
The bench emphasized that Section 125 of the CrPC is a social justice measure specifically designed to prevent destitution and protect the interests of dependents. The court held that a child is entitled to a standard of living that is consistent with the status and lifestyle of both parents.
Crucially, the court addressed the father’s plea regarding his debts. Justice Naithani observed:
“Voluntary financial commitments like loan repayments cannot take precedence over a child’s right to maintenance.”
The court noted that while supporting parents and siblings is a responsibility, it cannot be used as a shield to bypass the mandatory duty of maintaining one’s own minor child.
Finding the monthly amount of ₹8,000 to be “reasonable” given the father’s status as a CRPF employee, the High Court affirmed the family court’s decision. It also upheld the direction that the maintenance must be paid starting from the date the original application was filed.
