The Uttarakhand High Court has delivered a significant ruling, asserting that an able-bodied individual cannot use voluntary unemployment as an excuse to evade financial responsibilities towards their children. The court dismissed a father's plea to be relieved from paying maintenance for his two minor children, emphasizing his statutory and moral duty remains paramount.
Court Rejects 'Bald Plea' of Unemployment
Justice Alok Kumar Mahra, presiding over the case on January 3, underscored a settled legal principle. The court observed that a simple, unsubstantiated claim of having no job cannot be accepted without scrutiny, especially when the person is qualified and physically capable of working. The case involved a challenge to a 2022 order from a sessions court in Uttarakhand.
The sessions court had originally directed the father to pay Rs 6,500 per month for each of his two minor children. Both parents had filed appeals against this order. The father sought to cancel his obligation by claiming he was unemployed with no income source. The mother, on the other hand, requested an increase in the maintenance amount based on the children's needs.
Father's Qualifications Undermine His Claim
The High Court noted that the father is an MCA (Master of Computer Applications) graduate with considerable professional experience. It found his argument of being unable to earn due to ongoing litigation unacceptable. The judgment stated clearly: "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."
Justice Mahra further highlighted a crucial point of law regarding parental responsibility. The court clarified that the mother's earning status does not nullify the father's duty to provide for his children. This obligation is independent and continues as long as the children are minors. The court referred to established judicial precedents, noting that even when both parents earn, the father cannot escape his responsibility. This is particularly true when the children live with the mother, who bears the primary burden of their daily care and upbringing.
Maintenance Order Upheld as Reasonable
The High Court examined the sessions court's decision and found it sound. It noted that the family court had not placed the entire financial burden on the father. Instead, it had awarded a reasonable and moderate amount after considering the incomes of both parents and the children's actual needs.
The court rejected the contention that the liability should have been split mathematically between the parents, calling this idea "misconceived." It concluded that the maintenance awarded was proportionate and that the sessions court's order suffered from no illegality, perversity, or error in jurisdiction. Consequently, the pleas filed by both the father and the mother were dismissed, upholding the original maintenance directive.
This judgment reinforces the legal framework ensuring financial security for minors, making it clear that courts will look beyond mere claims of unemployment if the parent has the physical and professional capacity to generate an income.
