‘Able bodied person presumed to have capacity to earn’: Uttarakhand High Court rejects father’s ‘bald plea’ of no job

While noting that the father is admittedly an MCA graduate with substantial professional experience, the court said that his contention of being unable to earn due to pending litigation was not acceptable.

“An able-bodied person is presumed to have the capacity to earn, and intentional or voluntary unemployment cannot be used as an excuse to avoid statutory responsibility,” the court said.

The court highlighted that the mere fact that the mother is earning does not absolve the father of his statutory and moral duty to maintain his minor children.

Case

The case originated from a plea against the session court’s order in 2022, in which the court directed the father to pay Rs 6,500 per month to each of his two minor children.

Both father and mother filed the plea against the session court’s order. The father sought to cancel his support obligations by claiming unemployment, and the mother requested the higher payments for children based on their needs.

Decision

The court held that the obligation of a father to maintain his children is independent and continues so long as the children are minors.

While referring to the Judicial precedents in the cases of a child’s maintenance, the court said that even where both parents are earning, the father cannot escape his responsibility, particularly when the children are residing with the mother, and she is bearing the primary responsibility of their day-to-day care and upbringing.

“The Family Court has not placed the entire financial burden upon the father. It has awarded a reasonable and moderate amount after considering the income of both parents and the needs of the children. The contention that the liability ought to have been mathematically divided between the parents is misconceived,” the court added.

While noting that the maintenance awarded was reasonable and proportionate and the session court’s order in this case does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error, the plea of the father and mother is dismissed.