The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that a father's duty to maintain his child is paramount, regardless of the mother's income or the father's financial liabilities, reinforcing the importance of child support obligations.
Key Points
- Uttarakhand High Court affirms father's primary duty to maintain minor child.
- Mother's income does not absolve father of his legal obligation for child support.
- Section 125 CrPC is a social justice measure to prevent destitution of dependents.
- Voluntary financial commitments cannot override a child's right to maintenance.
- Child is entitled to a standard of living consistent with that of the parents.
The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that a father cannot evade his duty to maintain his minor child by citing the mother's income or his own financial liabilities.
High Court Upholds Family Court Order
Justice Ashish Naithani upheld a Roorkee family court order directing a man to pay Rs 8,000 monthly interim maintenance to his child.
The court dismissed a review petition filed by the man who challenged the lower court's directive issued under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The man submitted that both parents are in government service and while he serves in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), his wife is employed in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).
He argued that the financial burden should not rest solely on him. He further cited existing liabilities including loan repayments and responsibilities towards his parents and siblings.
The mother's counsel contended that the father has a clear statutory obligation as a permanent government employee to maintain the child.
Court's Observations on Parental Responsibility
The high court acknowledged the mother's income as a relevant factor but said it does not absolve the father of his primary responsibility.
The court observed that Section 125 CrPC is a social justice measure intended to prevent destitution. It said the law must protect the interests of dependents.
A child is entitled to a standard of living consistent with that of the parents, the court held.
Financial Commitments and Child's Right
The bench ruled that voluntary financial commitments like loan repayments cannot take precedence over a child's right to maintenance.
The court ruled that financial liabilities such as loan repayments or support to other family members are voluntary and cannot take precedence over a child's right to maintenance.
The court found the Rs 8,000 monthly amount reasonable. It affirmed the direction of the family court that maintenance be paid from the date of the filing of the original application.
© 2026