Despite earning mother, existing debts and dependent family members, the Uttarakhand High Court upheld the father’s obligation to pay maintenance.
Are fathers being seen only as providers, not as individuals facing genuine hardship?
NAINITAL: In a recent judgment, Justice Ashish Naithani of the Uttarakhand High Court dealt with a case where a father challenged an order directing him to pay ₹8,000 per month as interim maintenance to his minor daughter under Section 125 CrPC.
The parties married in 2018, and a daughter was born later. After matrimonial disputes arose, the child’s mother filed a maintenance case for the minor daughter before the Family Court. The Family Court ordered the father to pay ₹8,000 per month from the date of application, after which he moved the High Court.
The father argued that both he and the child’s mother were government employees—he in CRPF and the mother in CISF—so the entire financial burden should not fall on him alone. He also claimed that his salary was reduced due to loan deductions and that he had responsibilities towards his parents and siblings.
However, the Court said that:
“The statutory obligation of the father to maintain his minor child under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is absolute.”
Once paternity is admitted, and the child is dependent. The Court further clarified that:
“The father cannot avoid his responsibility merely because the mother is employed”.
Addressing the argument about financial burden, the Court observed that:
“Voluntary liabilities such as loan repayments cannot override the paramount right of a minor child to maintenance”.
It also noted that family responsibilities, though relevant, cannot take priority over a child’s legal right.
On the question of the amount of maintenance, the Court found that ₹8,000 per month is reasonable and stated that 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”.
The father also objected to maintenance being granted from the date of application, but the Court rejected this and held that such discretion is legally valid and properly exercised.
The Court reiterated that its revisional powers are limited and it cannot interfere unless there is clear illegality or perversity. Finding none, it concluded that the Family Court had applied its mind properly and passed a justified order.
The revision was dismissed, and the father was directed to continue paying ₹8,000 per month.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Section 125 CrPC | Gives maintenance to neglected wife, children or parents | Mother sought maintenance for minor daughter under this provision |
| Sections 397 CrPC | Allows High Court to examine legality of lower court orders in revision | Father filed revision challenging Family Court order |
| Section 401 CrPC | Gives powers to High Court while deciding revision petitions | Used along with Section 397 in this challenge |
| Section 19(4), Family Courts Act | Permits challenge to certain Family Court orders before High Court | Father invoked this provision against interim maintenance order |
| Interim Maintenance Principle | Temporary financial support during pendency of main case | Court upheld ₹8,000 monthly payment till final decision |
Case Details
- Case Title: Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 686 of 2023
- Court: Uttarakhand High Court
- Bench: Justice Ashish Naithani
- Neutral Citation: 2026:UHC:1557
- Date of Judgment: 11.03.2026
- Counsels:
- For Revisionist: Mr. Bharat Singh
- For State: Mr. G.C. Joshi, Mr. Vipul Painuly, with Mr. Rakesh Negi
- For Respondent No.2: Mr. Sanjeev Singh
Key Takeaways
- Even when both parents are earning government salaries, courts continue to place primary financial liability on the father.
- A father’s statutory duty under Section 125 CrPC is treated as absolute, with limited practical weight given to the mother’s income.
- Personal financial burdens like loans, family responsibilities, or dependent parents are not considered sufficient to reduce maintenance liability.
- Courts justify maintenance amounts by citing inflation and child expenses, often without strict scrutiny of proportional contribution from both parents.
- The legal framework operates in a way where the father’s obligation is enforced as primary, while the mother’s income does not proportionately dilute that burden.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
