The Uttarakhand High Court has refused to interfere with an interim maintenance order directing a father to pay ₹8,000 per month to his minor daughter. The Court made it clear that a father’s legal duty towards his child cannot be diluted by personal financial liabilities or the earning capacity of the mother.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a criminal revision filed by Deepak Kumar, challenging an order of the Family Court, Roorkee. The Family Court had granted interim maintenance to his minor daughter under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), effective from the date of application.
The marriage between the parties took place in February 2018, and a daughter was born from the union. Following disputes between the couple, the child’s mother approached the Family Court seeking maintenance for the minor.
The father argued before the High Court that both parents were employed in government service he in the CRPF and the mother in the CISF and therefore, the burden of maintenance should not fall entirely on him.
Counsel for the revisionist contended that the Family Court had ignored key financial aspects, including loan deductions and his responsibility towards dependent family members. It was argued that the maintenance amount was excessive and that the order lacked proper reasoning.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents maintained that the child’s right to maintenance is a statutory obligation and cannot be avoided. They emphasized that the father has a stable income and that the awarded amount was reasonable.
Justice Ashish Naithani noted that the paternity of the child was undisputed, making the father’s obligation under Section 125 Cr.P.C. clear and enforceable.
“The statutory obligation of the father to maintain his minor child is absolute,” the Court observed.
Read also:- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Declines Recusal in Kejriwal Case, Says Judiciary Cannot Be Put on Trial
Addressing the argument about the mother’s income, the bench clarified that:
“The father cannot avoid his responsibility merely because the mother is employed.”
The Court further held that personal financial commitments such as loan repayments cannot take precedence over a child’s right to maintenance.
“Voluntary liabilities cannot override the paramount right of a minor child,” it noted.
While acknowledging that the father had other family responsibilities, the Court stated that the duty towards a minor child stands on a higher footing.
On the quantum of maintenance, the Court found ₹8,000 per month to be reasonable, considering rising living costs, educational needs, and overall welfare of the child.
The High Court held that there was no illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the Family Court’s order. It reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence unless there is a clear error.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the criminal revision and affirmed the Family Court’s order. The father was directed to continue paying ₹8,000 per month as interim maintenance to his minor daughter.
Case Details
Case Title: Deepak Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 686 of 2023
Judge: Justice Ashish Naithani
Decision Date: 11 March 2026
