Maternal Grandmother Having Sufficient Interest In Minor Child Can Move Maintenance Application: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The High Court was considering a criminal revision filed by the petitioner/minor daughter challenging the order of the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, whereby the Family Court had, in the main proceeding under Section 125 of the CrPC, dismissed an application for interim maintenance pendente lite, filed by the petitioner/minor daughter through her next friend (maternal grandmother).

The Single Bench of Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal stated, “Further three coordinate Benches of the High Court of Madras, Kerala and Punjab and Haryana have taken the view that, a person who has sufficient interest in the minor, can move an application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC and procedure provided under Order XXXII of the CPC or the strict rule of the guardianship is not required to be complied with necessarily.”

“The provision under Section 125 of the CrPC is to be interpreted in a manner so as to advance the social justice and to extend the benefit to the helpless persons. The Family Court failed to take note of the fact that it is the minor whose rights are required to be enforced and not the next friend i.e. maternal grandmother. The Family Court is required to advance the benefit of provision to the minor daughter irrespective of person through whom she claims his entitlement to maintenance”, it added.

Advocate Avinash Dubey represented the Petitioner while Advocate Sanjay Jharia represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner claimed that she was born on September 26, 2015 and due to illness, her mother had died, leaving her, aged about 3 years only. It was further claimed that due to strained relations between the husband and wife, the respondent/father deserted the mother of the petitioner and she was living separately. It was the petitioner’s case that since the maternal grandmother was not in a position to maintain the petitioner properly, therefore, an application under Section 125 of the CrPC was filed by the petitioner through her next friend/maternal grandmother (Nani) and another application for awarding interim maintenance pendente lite was also filed.

This application was dismissed by the impugned order, on the premise that since the maternal grandmother was not a legal guardian of the petitioner duly appointed under the law, unless the maternal grandmother filed an appropriate application for taking legal custody of the petitioner, she had no right to file any proceeding on behalf of the petitioner.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner is a legitimate daughter of the respondent. The Bench further noted that in the application under Section 125 of the CrPC, the petitioner had clearly mentioned that after the death of her mother, she was in the care and custody of her maternal grandmother. The reply to the application showed that this fact was not denied by the respondent. “As such it is clear that the petitioner is daughter of the respondent and is living with her maternal grandmother (Nani)”, it added.

Considering that the Family Court failed to take note of the fact that it was the minor whose rights were required to be enforced and not the maternal grandmother, the Bench held that the Family Court was required to advance the benefit of provision to the minor daughter irrespective of person through whom she claimed maintenance.

Decision

Thus, allowing the criminal revision, the Bench remanded the matter to the concerned Family Court for deciding the application for interim maintenance afresh.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:82144)

Click here to read/download Order