The Uttarakhand High Court just sent a massive wake-up call to fighting parents. The Court has reiterated that a father cannot escape his duty to maintain his minor child simply because the mother is also employed.
Further, the Court stressed that voluntary debts and personal EMIs mean absolutely nothing when a child’s survival is on the line.
The Court observed that,
“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.”
The order was passed by a Single Bench of Justice Ashish Naithani while dismissing a criminal revision plea filed by a father, Deepak Kumar.
The petitioner was challenging an Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar directive that ordered him to pay ₹8,000 per month as interim maintenance for his minor daughter.
The legal battle traces back to a marriage solemnized in February 2018, which eventually hit the rocks. Following their separation, the mother approached the Family Court in Roorkee seeking financial support for their young daughter.
Interestingly, neither parent is strapped for cash. The father joined the CRPF while the mother was posted with the CISF.
In this backdrop, the principal issue before the Court was pretty straightforward. Could a father push the entire financial weight of raising a child onto the mother just because she has a steady government paycheck?
Counsel for the petitoner argued that out of his ₹63,702 monthly salary, giant slices were disappearing into loan repayments. He even pointed out that he had aging parents and younger siblings to feed, calling the ₹8,000 figure totally out of bounds.
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court emphasized the object of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., reminding the petitioner exactly what that law is built to do.
It exists to stop kids from ending up on the streets. A growing child deserves a lifestyle that matches what her parents enjoy.
Then came the reality check about his mounting EMIs. The Bench laid down an iron-clad rule.
The Bench noted that,
“However, 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, unless the liabilities are shown to be unavoidable and compelling.”
Towards the end of the hearing, the judge acknowledged that taking care of elderly parents is indeed a noble duty. However, he made it crystal clear that the “duty to maintain a minor child stands on a higher pedestal.”
Significantly, the Court found 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.”
Accordingly, the High Court tossed the instant Criminal Revision straight out the window for lacking any real merit.
The Bench upheld the Family Court’s original interim order. The father now has zero choice but to keep handing over the ₹8,000 every single month, calculated all the way back from the day the first application was filed.
Case: Deepak Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Case No: Criminal Revision No.686 of 2023
Date of Order: 11.03.2026
Status: Dismissed
