While upholding an order granting maintenance, the Uttarakhand High Court has held that a father cannot avoid his responsibility merely because the mother is employed.

The High Court was considering a Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397, 401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act challenging the impugned order of the Family Court.

The Single Bench of Justice Ashish Naithani held, “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.”

“However, it is well settled that voluntary liabilities such as loan repayments cannot override the paramount right of a minor child to maintenance. Financial commitments undertaken by a parent cannot be cited as a ground to deny or reduce legitimate maintenance, unless the liabilities are shown to be unavoidable and compelling”, it added.

Advocate Bharat Singh represented the Revisionist while Addl. Government Advocate Vipul Painuly represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The marriage of the couple was solemnized in 2018 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the wedlock, a female child (second respondent) was born. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties. The mother of the minor child moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Roorkee seeking maintenance for the minor child. Along with the main petition, an application for interim maintenance was also filed. The revisionist filed his written statement and objections to the interim maintenance application. The Family Court passed the impugned order granting interim maintenance of ₹8,000 per month in favour of the minor child. The revision was preferred against the impugned order.

Reasoning

Noting that the second respondent is the minor daughter born out of the wedlock between the revisionist and her mother and the paternity of the child was admitted, the Bench stated, “Therefore, the statutory obligation of the father to maintain his minor child under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is absolute, subject to proof of means and neglect.”

The Bench further stated, “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 tobe maintained in a manner commensurate with the status of the parents.”

Dealing with the Revisionist’s contention that he has aged parents and siblings to support, the Bench clarified that while such responsibilities cannot be ignored altogether, they do not eclipse the statutory obligation towards a minor child. “The duty to maintain a minor child stands on a higher pedestal”, it added.

Thus, finding no patent illegality, material irregularity or perversity in the impugned order, the Bench dismissed the Criminal Revision.

Cause Title: A v. State of Uttarakhand & Another (Neutral Citation:2026:UHC:1557)

Appearance

Revisionist: Advocate Bharat Singh

Respondent: Advocate G.C. Joshi, Addl. Govt. Advocate Vipul Painuly, Brief Holder Rakesh Negi, Advocate Sanjeev Singh

Click here to read/download Order








Uttarakhand High CourtJustice Ashish Naithani

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.