Dheeraj Kapoor v State of Uttarakhand and Ors, 2026

The proceedings originated from an application filed under Section 125 CrPC by two minor children, represented through their mother, seeking maintenance from their father on grounds of neglect and non-support.

The children contended that despite the father being qualified and capable, he failed to fulfill his legal and moral duty to maintain them.

The Family Court, Haridwar, after examining the material and evidence on record, awarded ₹6,500 per month to each child as maintenance.

The father challenged this order by filing a criminal revision, arguing financial incapacity and claiming that he was unemployed.

Simultaneously, the children filed a cross-revision petition seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount, citing rising educational and living expenses.

The father further argued that the mother was earning, and therefore, the burden of maintenance should be shared or apportioned between both parents.

The mother countered by asserting that the father had intentionally concealed his income and that he possessed sufficient earning capacity, given his educational qualifications and work experience.

Evidence on record revealed that the father had previously been employed with a Tokyo-based company, drawing a substantial salary, thereby undermining his claim of unemployment.

The Court categorically held that a mere plea of unemployment cannot be accepted when the person is able-bodied, qualified, and experienced.

It emphasized the legal presumption that an able-bodied individual possesses earning capacity, and cannot evade responsibility by remaining voluntarily unemployed.

The father’s defense was found to be not bona fide, especially in light of his educational qualifications (MCA) and prior employment with a high-paying company.

The Court reiterated that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature, intended to provide immediate relief and prevent destitution, rather than to punish the defaulting party.

It held that the mother’s independent income does not absolve the father of his statutory and moral duty to maintain his children.

The Court rejected the argument of strict financial apportionment, clarifying that the law does not mandate a mathematical division of liability.

It observed that the Family Court had already considered the financial circumstances of both parents before awarding maintenance.

The maintenance amount of ₹6,500 per month per child was held to be reasonable, fair, and proportionate.

The Court found no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order.

Consequently, both the father’s revision (seeking reduction) and the children’s revision (seeking enhancement) were dismissed.

The judgment strongly reinforces the welfare-oriented nature of Section 125 CrPC, aligning it with principles of social justice.

By recognizing the presumption of earning capacity, the Court shifts the burden onto the defaulting parent to prove genuine incapacity.

The ruling strengthens the doctrine of independent parental obligation, particularly emphasizing the father’s duty.

It rejects the concept of strict proportional liability, thereby ensuring flexibility based on practical realities rather than rigid formulas.

The Court’s reasoning prevents misuse of false or strategic unemployment claims to evade maintenance obligations.

It prioritizes the best interests and welfare of children, which is a central principle in family law jurisprudence.

The decision is consistent with established judicial precedents, thereby contributing to legal certainty and uniformity.

It clarifies that maintenance is a right of the child, not merely a discretionary relief.

The judgment also highlights the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, restricting interference to cases of illegality or perversity.