Child maintenance ruling: Uttarakhand High Court upholds fathers duty despite mothers income

The Uttarakhand High Court held that a father cannot avoid maintaining his minor child by citing the mothers income or his own financial liabilities. Justice Ashish Naithani upheld a Roorkee family court order for Rs 8,000 monthly interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, dismissing the fathers review petition.

The Uttarakhand High Court has said a father cannot avoid paying child maintenance. The court noted that a mother’s salary does not cancel a father’s core duty. It also said personal debts and other expenses cannot override a minor child’s needs. The ruling backed an interim maintenance order for a child under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Justice Ashish Naithani dismissed a review petition filed by the father. The petition challenged a Roorkee family court direction to pay Rs 8,000 each month. The High Court upheld the family court’s order. It also agreed that the payment should run from the original application filing date.

Uttarakhand High Court on Section 125 CrPC child maintenance

The court explained that Section 125 CrPC works as a social justice step. It aims to stop dependents from falling into destitution. The bench said the law must guard the interests of those who depend on support. It also held that a child deserves a standard of living matching the parents’ position.

During the hearing, the father argued that the cost should not fall on one parent. The father said both parents are government employees. The father serves in the Central Reserve Police Force CRPF. The mother works in the Central Industrial Security Force CISF.

Uttarakhand High Court view on income, loans and child maintenance

The father also referred to loan repayments and other claimed responsibilities. These included duties towards parents and siblings. The High Court said such liabilities are voluntary in nature. The bench held they cannot come before a child’s right to maintenance. It repeated that loan payments cannot take priority over a minor’s needs.

The mother’s counsel said the father has a clear legal duty to support the child. The counsel stressed that the father is a permanent government employee. The High Court accepted that the mother’s income is a factor. Still, it ruled that this does not remove the father’s primary responsibility.

The High Court found the interim amount of Rs 8,000 per month reasonable. It upheld the Roorkee family court’s direction without changes. The review petition therefore failed. The order remained effective from the date the maintenance application was first filed.

With inputs from PTI