Nainital, Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that a father cannot evade his duty to support his minor child by mentioning the mother’s income or financial liabilities.
Justice Ashish Naithani upheld the order of the Roorkee Family Court ordering the man to pay $8,000 monthly temporary expenses for his child.
The court dismissed the review petition filed by the man who challenged the directions of the trial court issued under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The man stated that his parents worked in government service, and while he was serving in the Central Reserve Police Force, his wife was working in the Central Industrial Security Force.
He said the financial burden should not fall on him alone. He also referred to current obligations including loan repayments and responsibilities towards his parents and siblings.
The mother’s lawyer asserted that the father had a clear legal obligation to support the child as a permanent government employee.
The Supreme Court recognized that the mother’s income was an important factor, but said that this did not relieve the father of his primary responsibility.
The court noted that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a social justice measure aimed at preventing want. She said the law must protect the interests of dependents.
The court held that the child has the right to a standard of living consistent with that of his parents.
The court ruled that voluntary financial obligations such as loan repayments cannot take precedence over the child’s right to maintenance.
The court ruled that financial obligations such as repaying loans or supporting other family members are voluntary and cannot take precedence over the child’s right to maintenance.
The court found $8000 is a reasonable monthly amount. It confirmed the Family Court’s directive to pay alimony from the date of submitting the original application.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
