Non-Payment Of Maintenance By Father Not Shown To Have Actual Control Over Child Won’t Attract Sec.75 Of Juvenile Justice Act: Kerala High Court

Tulip Kanth

30 Aug 2026 4:00 PM IST

The petition before the Kerala High Court was filed by the sole accused, who was booked under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

While quashing the proceedings registered under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act where a father was accused of abandoning his child, the Kerala High Court has held that mere non-payment of maintenance by a father, who is not shown to have actual charge of or control over the child, would not, by itself, attract the provision in question.

The petition before the High Court was filed by the sole accused, who was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). The petitioner sought an order quashing the final report and all further proceedings in the said case.

The Single Bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian held, “Likewise, mere non-payment of maintenance by a father, who is not shown to have actual charge of or control over the child, would not, by itself, attract Section 75 of the J.J. Act. The statutory ingredients of the offence cannot be expanded merely on the basis of the relationship between the accused and the child.”

Advocate Shaijan C. George represented the Petitioner while Senior Public Prosecutor Megha K. Xavier represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the accused, being the father of a sixteen-year-old boy having actual charge of and control over the said child, abandoned the child and failed to provide for his maintenance. He was thus booked under Section 75 of the JJ Act.

Arguments

It was the case of the petitioner father that the income-generating assets of the petitioner were being enjoyed by his wife and the minor son was residing with his wife. The petitioner submitted that the child was being maintained out of the income derived therefrom. It was claimed that the petitioner had not neglected to maintain the child.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that the scope of enquiry in a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings is limited to examining whether the allegations disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged and if the allegations raise disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence, such matters are ordinarily to be decided by the trial court after a full-fledged trial.

The Bench took note of the fact that the criminal law was set in motion based on a private complaint filed by the petitioner’s wife before the jurisdictional Magistrate, alleging that the petitioner had abandoned their sixteen-year-old minor son and had wilfully neglected to provide for his maintenance. The Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C and a criminal case was registered under the JJ Act.

The Bench further explained that Section 75 of the J.J. Act deals with cruelty to a child and contemplates a situation where a person having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects the child in a manner likely to cause the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering. “Thus, one of the essential requirements for attracting Section 75 of the J.J. Act is that the accused must have had actual charge of, or control over, the child at the relevant time. The allegation of abandonment or wilful neglect must also be considered in the context of such actual charge or control”, it added.

The Bench affirmed the petitioner’s stand that the mere fact that the petitioner is the father of the child, by itself, would not satisfy the statutory requirement of having actual charge of or control over the child for the purpose of Section 75 of the J.J. Act. “There must be material indicating that the accused had actual charge of or control over the child and, while having such charge or control, wilfully neglected, abandoned, abused or otherwise subjected the child to the conduct contemplated under Section 75”, it clarified.

Conclusion

Holding that the materials available on record did not disclose the essential ingredient that the petitioner was having actual charge of or control over the child at the relevant time, the Bench allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the accused father.

Cause Title: A v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:61563)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Shaijan C. George, Sajitha George

Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Megha K. Xavier, Advocates Sajju S, Beena N. Kartha, Ren Shibu, Shehroon Patel A.K., Issac Melvin B.O., Alvin Joseph, Riya Philo Johnson, Sajie Shankar, Gishma P. S., Mary Helen A. G., Ishma T. B., Febin Fathima

Click here to read/download Order

Related Tags :

Tulip Kanth

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.