Court dismissed a father’s plea against interim maintenance for his minor child, saying he could not evade responsibility by citing the mother’s income, loans or other family duties
Dehradun: Uttarakhand high court has held that a father cannot evade his responsibility to maintain his minor child by arguing that the mother also earns, or that he has debts and other family obligations, and said the duty to maintain a child remains paramount.
Justice Aashish Naithani upheld a Roorkee family court order directing the father to pay Rs 8,000 per month as interim maintenance for the minor child.The matter arose from a petition filed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), in which the child’s mother had sought maintenance. The family court allowed the application and directed the father to pay Rs 8,000 per month from the date of the application itself, the father subsequently challenged the order before the HC.The man argued that both he and his wife were in govt service, with him working in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and his wife in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), and said it was not appropriate to place the entire financial burden on him alone. He also contended that his income was spent on loan instalments and responsibilities toward his parents and siblings.The other side argued that the father was a permanent govt employee with a stable income and, therefore, had a statutory obligation to maintain the child.
It also said the amount fixed by the family court was reasonable and in line with the child’s needs.The court found no dispute regarding the child’s paternity; therefore, the father’s liability under section 125 was clearly established. “It is true that the mother’s income cannot be entirely ignored, but on that ground alone, the father cannot be absolved of his responsibility,” HC said.HC added said section 125 was a provision for social justice, intended to prevent destitution and penury, and must be interpreted liberally in favour of dependants.
It added that a minor child is entitled to a standard of living commensurate with the parents’ status.The court clarified that loan instalments and other personal expenses were voluntary obligations and could not override the child’s right to maintenance, while responsibilities towards parents or other relatives also did not extinguish the father’s statutory duty. Considering the facts, HC held that Rs 8,000 per month was neither excessive nor unreasonable, and also upheld the direction to pay maintenance from the date of the application.HC said there was no legal error or inconsistency in the family court’s order and dismissed the revision petition, clarifying that the amount was interim maintenance and would remain subject to the final decision in the matter.
