Keywords: Maintenance, Criminal Procedure Code, Minor Children, Sec 125 of CrPC.
In an important decision, the Uttarakhand High Court ruled that a minor child has the right to sue their mother for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), if the mother has the financial wherewithal to do so.
The Court made it clear that both men and women are included in the definition of “person” as used in Section 125.
The Court explained that if either parent neglects a minor child, whether they are legitimate or not, and they have the financial resources to do so, they would be held responsible for the upkeep of the child.
According to Section 125(1) of the CrPC, anyone with sufficient resources is responsible for a minor child’s upkeep.
The educational and economic status of women has substantially changed in the 21st century, Justice Pankaj Purohit emphasized. He noted the changing environment by claiming that the majority of women are now educated and employed.
The Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines “gender” and specifies that “he” and related pronouns are appropriate for all people, regardless of gender, was also cited by the court. This knowledge lends credence to the assertion that mothers and fathers are both covered by Section 125(1) of the CrPC.
When affirming a family court’s judgment to order a government teacher who is the mother of a minor son to pay maintenance of $2,000 to her child, the High Court made these observations. The child’s parents divorced in 2006, and he has been residing with his father since then.
The father’s financial circumstances had gotten worse, making it impossible for him to give his child a good education, a good upbringing, or a healthy diet, the family court had been informed earlier. The mother responded by contesting the family court’s decision, claiming that only the father is responsible for providing for young children and not the mother. Her attorney provided evidence for this claim in the form of a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision.
Justice Purohit, in contrast, disagreed with this claim, pointing out that the precedents mentioned were out of date and came from a time when women were mostly ignorant and unemployed.
He emphasized that the mother had the wherewithal to raise her child because she worked as a government teacher and had a sizable income of at least 1,00,000.
The High Court consequently dismissed the mother’s appeal and maintained the family court’s judgement.
By accepting that mothers, if they have the means, are also liable for the financial support of their minor children, the decision broadens the application of Section 125 of the CrPC.
Written by G. Nikitha, College name – KL UNIVERSITY, Semester- 9th Semester, Legal Journalist intern under Legal Vidhiya
