Alimony & Child Maintenance Lawyer Delhi

Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Maintenance for Minor Children Despite Father’s Unemployment

In a significant judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court reaffirmed that an able-bodied and qualified individual cannot evade the legal obligation to maintain minor children merely by pleading unemployment. The ruling emphasizes that voluntary or unsubstantiated unemployment cannot be used to avoid statutory responsibilities under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Case Overview: Dheeraj Kapoor v State of Uttarakhand and Ors & Ridhi Kapoor and Another v Dheeraj Kapoor

Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 626 of 2022
Bench: Justice Alok Mahra

The dispute arose from an application filed by the minor children through their mother, seeking maintenance. The Family Court, Haridwar awarded ₹6,500 per month to each child after considering the evidence and financial position of both parents. The father challenged this award, seeking a reduction, while the children sought enhancement.

The High Court observed:

“The mere fact that the mother is earning does not absolve the father of his statutory and moral duty to maintain his minor children. The obligation of a father continues as long as the children are minors. Even when both parents earn, the father cannot escape responsibility, especially when the children reside with the mother who bears primary care responsibility.”

The Court also clarified that maintenance liability need not be mathematically apportioned between parents, and the Family Court’s award was reasonable. Both the father’s request for reduction and the children’s request for enhancement were dismissed, upholding the original maintenance order.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Section 125 CrPC mandates fathers to maintain minor children irrespective of their employment status.
Voluntary unemployment cannot be a defense to avoid maintenance obligations.
Maintenance awards consider both parents’ financial positions and the children’s needs, but fathers cannot be absolved of responsibility simply because the mother earns.
Courts have discretion to award a reasonable sum, and exact apportionment between parents is not legally required.

Need Legal Help with Maintenance or Divorce Cases in Delhi?

If you are dealing with domestic disputes, child maintenance, or complex matrimonial issues, professional legal guidance is crucial. Advocate Devashish Maharishi, a top divorce and family law lawyer in Karkardooma Court, Delhi, specializes in:

✅ Mutual or contested divorce cases
✅ Domestic violence protection and CAW Cell complaints
✅ Maintenance, alimony, and interim maintenance cases
✅ Child custody and transfer petitions
✅ NRI divorce matters and quashing petitions

📍 Office Address: 137, J-Extension, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, 110092
📞 Contact: 8595722509

Secure your children’s future and assert your legal rights with expert guidance.

Maintenance case lawyer Delhi

Interim maintenance lawyer Delhi

NRI divorce lawyer Delhi

Family court lawyer Delhi

Quashing petition lawyer Delhi

CAW Cell complaint lawyer Delhi

Restitution of conjugal rights lawyer Delhi

Father child support lawyer Delhi

Mother child support lawyer Delhi

Divorce lawyer in Delhi

Best family lawyer in Delhi

Child custody lawyer Delhi

Child maintenance lawyer Delhi

Alimony lawyer in Delhi

Domestic violence lawyer Delhi

Matrimonial lawyer Delhi

Contested divorce lawyer Delhi

Mutual consent divorce lawyer Delhi

When is an Offence Murder Or attempt to Murder in Delayed Death

Supreme Court Clarifies Murder vs. Attempt to Murder in Delayed Death: Key Takeaways from Maniklal Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Appeal No. 5578 of 2024, Judgment Dated September 12, 2025 In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has clarified the distinction between murder under Section 302 and attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) , specifically in cases where the death occurs long after the original assault due to medical complications like septicemia. The ruling came from the recent Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh case , which sheds new light on how courts should treat delayed deaths caused by the injuries inflicted in an assault. Key Facts: The case involved the conviction of Maniklal Sahu and three co-accused for the murder of Rekhchand Verma. Rekhchand was assaulted by the accused on February 22, 2022, and suffered severe injuries. He survived for about nine months but eventually died on November 8, 2022, due to septicemia and pneum...

Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number 8595722509

Search This Blog