Employment of mother does not absolve father of the absolute statutory obligation to maintain minor child.

The revisionist (husband) and the mother of respondent no. 2 (minor daughter) were married in 2018.

Following matrimonial disputes, the mother filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance of the child.

Both parents are government employees; the father serves in the CRPF and the mother in the CISF.

On July 24, 2023, the Family Court, Roorkee, passed an interim order directing the revisionist to pay ₹8,000 per month as maintenance from the date of the application.

The revisionist challenged this order, citing heavy loan deductions from his gross salary of ₹63,702 and the mother’s independent income.

1. Whether the entire liability of maintaining a minor child can be placed on the father when the mother is also gainfully employed in government service.

2. Whether voluntary financial liabilities, such as loan repayments, can justify a reduction in the quantum of maintenance for a minor child.

3. Whether the Family Court exercised its discretion properly in awarding maintenance from the date of the application rather than the date of the order.

The court primarily applied Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., interpreted as social justice legislation aimed at preventing destitution and vagrancy.

It invoked the principle that a father’s statutory obligation to maintain his minor child is absolute, subject to means, and is not absolved by the mother's employment.

The court further applied the doctrine that maintenance must be commensurate with the status of the parents and that voluntary liabilities (like loans) cannot override the paramount rights of the child.

Finally, it relied on the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. and Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, which restricts interference to cases of manifest illegality or perversity.

The Court reasoned that while the mother’s income is a factor in determining fairness, it does not release the father from his primary duty.

Analyzing the revisionist's finances, the Court held that his gross salary of ₹63,000 is sufficient and that "voluntary liabilities" like loan instalments cannot be prioritized over a child's right to maintenance.

The Court dismissed the argument regarding the revisionist's duty toward parents and siblings, noting that the duty toward a minor child stands on a "higher pedestal".

Applying the standard of living and current inflation, the Court found ₹8,000 per month to be reasonable for the child’s educational and medical needs.

Regarding the commencement date, the Court found no misapplication of law, as the statute grants discretion to award maintenance from the date of application.

It affirmed the order dated July 24, 2023, and directed the revisionist to continue paying ₹8,000 per month as interim maintenance from the date of the application.

The Court clarified that interim maintenance is provisional and the revisionist may present evidence regarding the mother's proportionate responsibility during the final trial.