Mother Can Also Be Liable To Pay Maintenance To A Minor Child U/s. 125 CrPC: Uttarakhand HC
The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision filed by a mother against the maintenance demanded by her son. The Court emphasised that if a parent has the means to support their legitimate/illegitimate child but fails to do so, they will be held responsible for providing maintenance.
Justice Pankaj Purohit noted, “The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. has already been changed, as discussed above and according to the language of the present Section 125 Cr.P.C., in the opinion of this Court “person” would include both male and female and in reference to a minor child whether legitimate or illegitimate mother or father having sufficient means if neglects and refuses to maintain such minor child would be held liable to pay the maintenance of such child”.
“Now, there is a sea-change in the educational and economic status of the women. In the 21st century, most of the women now are well educated and are in gainful employment”, the Court noted.
Advocate Sudhir Kumar appeared for the Revisionist and Advocate Bhupendra Prasad appeared for the Respondent.
The Respondent was the son of the Revisionist (a government teacher) and Nathu Lal (Father). After the couple’s divorce, the Respondent was living with his Father, who claimed that the revisionist never visited their child after the divorce. As per the terms of the divorce, the Respondent would stay with his Father, who would take responsibility for his maintenance and upbringing. However, due to financial problems, the Respondent claimed Rs. 10,000 from the Revisionist. The Family Judge held that even though the Respondent was living with his Father, the revisionist also had a duty to contribute to his maintenance and education. Aggrieved by the order, the Revisionist filed a Criminal Revision on the grounds that the duty to maintain the minor children is only upon the father and not on the mother.
Section 126 Cr.P.C. sub-section (2) no longer includes the terms “father” or “husband” as it did in the previous version of the Cr.P.C. Section 488 sub-section (6), the Court asserted. Instead, the word “person” has been added to the sub-section, meaning that any evidence presented during maintenance proceedings must be in the presence of the person who the payment order is aimed at, the Court observed.
“It is clear from the aforesaid sub-Section (2) of Section 126 Cr.P.C. that there is no such word “father” or “husband” in the aforesaid sub-section, as it was there in the old Cr.P.C. Section 488 sub-Section (6). Now, in place of “father” or “husband”, “person” has been incorporated and it is provided that “all evidence to such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made..........” Thus, this case law is also of no help to the revisionist and the same is distinguished by this Court on the aforesaid reasons”, the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Revision and affirmed the order of the Family Court.
Cause Title: Anshu Gupta v. Adwait Anand @ Devansh
