Father’s Obligation To Maintain Minor Child Under Section 125 CrPC Is Absolute Even If Mother Is Also Earning: Uttarakhand High Court

"Statutory obligation of the father to maintain his minor child under Section 125 CrPC is absolute... The contention that the mother is also earning does not ipso facto absolve the father of his statutory obligation, " Uttarakhand High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a father’s statutory duty to maintain his minor child under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is absolute and cannot be avoided merely because the mother is also gainfully employed.

A single bench of Justice Ashish Naithani observed that while the income of both parents is relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance, the father cannot shirk his primary responsibility toward the child.

The case arose from a matrimonial dispute where the mother of a minor girl filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Both parents are government employees—the father serves in the CRPF and the mother in the CISF. The Family Court at Roorkee had awarded interim maintenance of ₹8,000 per month to the minor child, which the father challenged on the grounds that the mother’s income and his own loan liabilities were not adequately considered.

The primary question before the court was whether the employment of the mother in government service absolves the father of his statutory obligation to maintain his minor child. The court was also called upon to determine whether voluntary financial liabilities, such as loan repayments and responsibilities toward siblings, can override the maintenance rights of a minor child.

Section 125 CrPC Is Social Justice Legislation

The Court began by emphasizing the underlying philosophy of Section 125 CrPC, noting it is a social justice legislation intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy. The bench observed that the provision must be interpreted liberally in favour of dependents. Justice Naithani remarked that a minor child is entitled to be maintained in a manner "commensurate with the status of the parents."

Father’s Responsibility Not Absolved By Mother’s Employment

The Court dealt specifically with the revisionist’s argument that since the mother is in government service, the entire burden of maintenance should not fall on him. The bench clarified that the father cannot avoid his responsibility merely because the mother is employed. While the financial capacity of both parents is relevant for the "fair and reasonable" distribution of the burden, the father’s duty remains paramount.

"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."

Voluntary Loan Repayments Cannot Override Child’s Maintenance

Addressing the father’s plea regarding substantial salary deductions for loan repayments, the Court held that voluntary liabilities cannot take precedence over a child's right to maintenance. The revisionist had argued that his net take-home salary was significantly reduced by loan installments of ₹6,454 and ₹18,640. The Court rejected this, stating that financial commitments cannot be a ground to deny maintenance unless they are "unavoidable and compelling."

"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."

Duty To Minor Child Stands On A Higher Pedestal

The revisionist further contended that he had aged parents and younger siblings to support. While acknowledging these familial responsibilities, the Court held that they do not "eclipse the statutory obligation towards a minor child." The bench noted that the legal and moral duty to maintain one's own child occupies the highest priority in the hierarchy of maintenance obligations.

Quantum Of ₹8,000 Reasonable Given Inflation And Living Costs

The Court found the interim maintenance amount of ₹8,000 per month to be justified. It noted that when considering present inflation, the rising cost of living, and the educational, nutritional, and medical needs of a growing child, the amount awarded by the Family Court was neither excessive nor arbitrary. The bench further upheld the Family Court’s discretion to grant this maintenance from the date of the application.

"Considering present inflation, rising cost of living, educational expenses, nutritional requirements and medical needs of a growing child, the said amount cannot be termed as excessive or arbitrary."

Limited Scope Of Revisional Jurisdiction In Interim Orders

Finally, the High Court emphasized that its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is supervisory, not appellate. It noted that interim maintenance is provisional and subject to final adjudication after a full trial. Since no manifest illegality or gross perversity was found in the Family Court’s order, the bench declined to interfere with the lower court’s findings.

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision and affirmed the order of the Family Court, Roorkee. The Court concluded that the father must continue to pay the interim maintenance, reiterating that the statutory framework of Section 125 CrPC is designed to ensure that children are not left without support due to parental disputes.

Date of Decision: 11 March 2026