NAINITAL<\/em>: The Uttarakhand High Court<\/strong> said claiming unemployment<\/strong> is not enough to avoid paying maintenance<\/strong> to minor children under Section 125 CrPC<\/a><\/strong>. The Court said that if a person is educated, capable, and healthy, the law assumes he has the ability to earn and support his children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Alok Mahra<\/strong> was hearing two petitions related to a Family Court order in Haridwar, where a father was directed to pay \u20b96,500 per month to each of his two minor children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case started when the children, through their mother, filed an application under Section 125 CrPC claiming that the father had neglected them and was not providing financial support. After reviewing the evidence, the Family Court<\/strong> granted maintenance<\/a> of \u20b96,500 per child every month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The father challenged this order saying he was unemployed and could not afford to pay such an amount. He also argued that the Court ignored the income of the mother and that both parents should share the financial responsibility<\/strong>. He further objected to paying maintenance from the date of application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other side, the children argued that the father is well-qualified and capable of earning, but has hidden his real financial status. They also pointed out that the cost of education and daily living has increased, and the burden is already being handled by the mother.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They also stated that even if the mother is earning, it does not reduce the father\u2019s responsibility, especially when the children are living with her and she is managing their day-to-day needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court first clarified that proceedings under to Section 125 CrPC are meant prevent<\/strong> financial hardship for dependents and are not meant to punish anyone<\/strong>. The Court also said that its powers in revision are limited and it can interfere only if there is a clear legal error.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While examining the father\u2019s claim of unemployment, the Court looked at the evidence and his own statements. It was found that he had earlier worked with a Tokyo-based company and had a take-home salary of around \u20b964,000 per month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt is a settled principle of law that a bald plea of unemployment cannot be accepted at face value, particularly when the person concerned is able-bodied, qualified and experienced. The revisionist is admittedly an MCA graduate with substantial work experience. In such circumstances, the plea that he is unable to earn on account of pending litigations is not acceptable. An able-bodied person is presumed to have the capacity to earn, and intentional or voluntary unemployment cannot be used as an excuse to avoid statutory responsibility\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also addressed the argument about the mother\u2019s income and made it clear that a father cannot avoid responsibility just because the mother is earning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe mere fact that the mother is earning does not absolve the father of his statutory and moral duty to maintain his minor children. The obligation of a father to maintain his children is independent and continues so long as the children are minors. Judicial precedents consistently hold that even where both parents are earning, the father cannot escape his responsibility, particularly when the children are residing with the mother and she is bearing the primary responsibility of their day-to-day care and upbringing\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further rejected the argument that maintenance should be divided equally between both parents, stating that the law does not require such fixed division. It noted that the Family Court had already considered both sides and awarded a reasonable amount.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the High Court held that \u20b96,500 per month per child is fair and legally valid. Both the father\u2019s request to reduce the amount and the children\u2019s request to increase it were rejected, and the Family Court\u2019s order was upheld.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment again reflects how courts presume earning capacity over actual financial distress, placing a continuing obligation on fathers<\/strong> even when income disputes and practical difficulties exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Explanatory Table Of Laws & Sections<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Explanation<\/strong><\/td> How Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 125 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Provides maintenance to wife, children, parents to prevent destitution<\/td> Basis of entire claim by children seeking financial support<\/td><\/tr> Sections 397\/401 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Revisional jurisdiction of High Court<\/td> Used by both father and children to challenge Family Court order<\/td><\/tr> Rajneesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Mandatory disclosure of assets and liabilities<\/td> Applied to assess true income of both parties<\/td><\/tr> Domestic Violence Act (DV Act)<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Provides monetary relief and protection to aggrieved persons<\/td> Father argued mother already receiving relief; Court rejected impact on Sec 125 duty<\/td><\/tr> Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi<\/strong><\/td> Maintenance must match financial capacity<\/td> Cited by father to reduce liability<\/td><\/tr> Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas case<\/strong><\/td> Maintenance from date of application principles<\/td> Father challenged retrospective maintenance<\/td><\/tr> Shail Kumari Devi case<\/strong><\/td> Judicial discretion in maintenance start date<\/td> Court upheld Family Court discretion<\/td><\/tr> S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu case<\/strong><\/td> Fraud vitiates judicial acts<\/td> Father alleged concealment by mother<\/td><\/tr> Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.<\/strong><\/td> Suppression of facts impacts relief<\/td> Used in argument but not accepted strongly<\/td><\/tr> Urvashi Aggarwal case<\/strong><\/td> Father\u2019s duty despite mother\u2019s earnings<\/td> Relied upon by children<\/td><\/tr> Raghubar Singh case<\/strong><\/td> Adverse inference on concealment of income<\/td> Applied against father<\/td><\/tr> Section 125 CrPC (Principle)<\/strong><\/td> No strict mathematical apportionment between parents<\/td> Court rejected equal division argument<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n