Father Can’t Escape Maintenance Liability Towards Minor Children Even When Mother Is Earning: Uttarakhand High Court
The Uttarakhand High Court was considering the criminal revisions filed against the judgment of the Family Court, partly allowing the application filed by the minor children under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Justice Alok Mahra, Uttarakhand High Court
While upholding the maintenance awarded by the Family Court, the Uttarakhand High Court has reaffirmed 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 High Court was considering the criminal revisions filed against the judgment of the Family Court, partly allowing the application filed by the minor children under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and directing the father to pay maintenance of ₹6,500 per month to each of the two minor children. One of the revision applications was filed by the father seeking the setting aside of the impugned order, and the other Revision was filed by the minor children through their mother, seeking enhancement of the amount of maintenance.
The Single Bench of Justice Alok Mahra stated, “With regard to the income of the mother of minor children, the learned Family Court has duly considered the material on record and has recorded a clear finding that her monthly income is approximately ₹93,991/-. The court has also noted that though there was initially some lack of disclosure, the income stood clarified through her admission. However, 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.”
Advocate Tapan Singh represented the Revisionist, while Brief Holder Dinesh Chauhan represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu rites and rituals. Owing to matrimonial discord, the parties started living separately, and the minor children were residing with their mother. The minor children, through their mother, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging that the father was addicted to alcohol and had subjected their mother to physical and mental cruelty. It was alleged that on multiple occasions she was assaulted, her character was maligned, and she was eventually forced to leave the matrimonial home. It was further pleaded that the father was earning about ₹90,000 per month while working in an insurance company and had sufficient means to maintain the children. Maintenance of ₹30,000 per month was sought.
The father contested the application, denying all allegations of cruelty and neglect. The Trial Court disbelieved the plea of total unemployment in view of his own admissions and documentary material and directed the father to pay maintenance of ₹6,500 per month to each minor.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the revisionist admitted that he was employed with IFFCO Tokio and that the offer letter issued to him reflected a monthly CTC of ₹92,562 and an annual CTC of ₹11,10,738. He further admitted that his take-home salary was around ₹64,000 per month. Dealing with the father’s claim of unemployment, the Bench stated, “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 learned Family Court has therefore rightly drawn an adverse inference against the revisionist for not making a full and truthful disclosure of his income and employment details, in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajneesh v. Neha (2021)...”
The Bench was of the view that the Family Court had not placed the entire financial burden upon the father and had awarded a reasonable and moderate amount after considering the income of both parents and the needs of the children. The Bench found the contention that the liability ought to have been mathematically divided between the parents was misconceived. “Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not require arithmetical apportionment. The maintenance of ₹6,500/- per month to each child, totalling ₹13,000/- per month, cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate. Considering the rising cost of living, educational expenses and other daily needs of growing children, the amount appears reasonable and, in fact, on the lower side when seen in the light of the earning capacity of the revisionist”, it added.
Considering the Criminal Revision filed by the minor children seeking enhancement of maintenance, the Bench stated that revisional jurisdiction is not an appellate jurisdiction and unless the maintenance awarded is shockingly low or manifestly unjust, enhancement cannot be granted merely on re-evaluation of facts. Finding the maintenance awarded to be reasonable and proportionate, the Bench dismissed both the Revisions.
Cause Title: A v. State Of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2026:UHC:66)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Tapan Singh
Respondent: Brief Holder Dinesh Chauhan, Advocates Divya Jain