In a significant ruling emphasizing the paramount importance of a child's welfare, the Uttarakhand High Court has firmly stated that a minor's right to maintenance is absolute and independent and cannot be entangled in the disputes between separating parents. The court recently dismissed a revision petition filed by a man challenging a family court's maintenance order in favour of his estranged wife and their minor daughter.
Court Upholds Family Court's Maintenance Order
Justice Ashish Naithani, presiding over the case, upheld the Dehradun family court's directive which had ordered the petitioner to pay Rs 10,000 per month to his wife and Rs 8,000 per month for their daughter. The order was passed on December 19, 2025. The High Court found that the family court's verdict "reflects proper application of mind" and does not suffer from any "perversity, illegality, or material irregularity."
The bench observed that the total amount of Rs 18,000 awarded does not appear to be "arbitrary or shockingly excessive" when viewed in light of contemporary living costs and the genuine needs of the wife and the child. The court underscored that the educational qualification or potential earning capacity of the wife does not disqualify her from claiming maintenance under the law.
The Core Legal Principle: Child's Right is Unconditional
The most pivotal part of the judgment was the court's unambiguous declaration regarding the child's rights. Justice Naithani asserted, "As regards the minor child, the obligation of the father to maintain his child is unconditional. The right of the child is independent and cannot be made subject to disputes between the spouses." This principle formed the bedrock of the court's decision to reject the father's arguments.
The court elaborated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a piece of social welfare legislation. Its primary objective is to prevent "destitution and vagrancy" by legally compelling a person with sufficient means to support those who are dependent on him, rather than merely adjudicating matrimonial disputes.
Background of the Case and Arguments Rejected
The couple had married on May 13, 2012 and have a daughter. After marital discord, the wife left the matrimonial home with the child. She subsequently approached the family court, alleging that her husband, despite having adequate means, refused to provide for their upkeep.
The husband's counsel challenged the order on several grounds:
- Contending that the wife had no justifiable cause for living separately.
- Arguing that maintenance was fixed without documentary proof of his income and was beyond his capacity.
- Claiming financial hardship post-COVID-19 lockdown and responsibility towards his ailing, aged parents.
The High Court, however, found these submissions insufficient. It noted that the wife's claim of having no stable income was not convincingly rebutted. More critically, the court ruled that while the man's responsibilities towards his parents are relevant, they do not absolve him of his statutory duty to maintain his minor child and wife, especially in the absence of concrete proof of financial incapacity.
The bench also clarified that the phrase "unable to maintain herself" for a wife does not imply she must be in a state of absolute destitution, but rather that she lacks sufficient means to support herself adequately.
By dismissing the revision petition as lacking merit, the Uttarakhand High Court has reinforced a child-centric interpretation of maintenance laws, ensuring that the welfare of the child remains insulated from the conflicts between parents.
