The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a father cannot evade his legal duty to maintain his minor child by citing the mother’s income or his own financial liabilities, reaffirming the primacy of a child’s right to support.

Justice Ashish Naithani upheld an order of a Roorkee family court directing a man to pay Rs 8,000 per month as interim maintenance to his child. The court dismissed the man’s review petition challenging the directive issued under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner argued that both parents are government employees — he serves in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), while his wife works with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) — and contended that the financial burden should not fall solely on him. He also cited existing liabilities, including loan repayments and responsibilities towards his parents and siblings.

Opposing the plea, the mother’s counsel maintained that the father, as a permanent government employee, has a clear statutory obligation to provide for the child.

Agreeing with this view, the high court observed that while the mother’s income may be a relevant factor, it does not absolve the father of his primary responsibility. The bench underscored that Section 125 CrPC is a social justice measure aimed at preventing destitution and ensuring support for dependents.

The court further held that a child is entitled to a standard of living consistent with that of the parents. It ruled that voluntary financial commitments — such as loan repayments or supporting other family members — cannot take precedence over a child’s right to maintenance.

Finding the Rs 8,000 monthly amount reasonable, the court affirmed the family court’s direction that the maintenance be paid from the date of filing of the original application.

With PTI inputs