Jahanvi Agarwal
The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision filed by a mother against the maintenance demanded by her son. The Court highlighted that if a parent has the resources to maintain their legitimate/illegitimate child but chooses not to do so, they will be held liable for paying maintenance.
The bench consisted of Justice Pankaj Purohit who noted that:
“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.”
In the said case, the Revisionist, a government teacher, and his father Nathu Lal were the parents of the Respondent. The Respondent was living with his Father following the divorce, who said that the Revisionist never saw their kid after the divorce. The Respondent would remain with his Father, who would be in charge of providing for his maintenance and upbringing, in accordance with the conditions of the divorce.
However, the Respondent requested Rs. 10,000 from the Revisionist owing to financial issues. The Family Judge ruled that the mother had a responsibility to support the Respondent’s upkeep and education even though he was living with his Father. The revisionist, who was offended by the order, filed a criminal revision on the grounds that only the father has a responsibility to care for the young children and not the mother.
The Court argued that the terms “father” and “husband” are no longer included in Section 126 Cr.P.C. sub-section (2) as they were in the earlier version of Section 488 sub-section (6) of the Cr.P.C.
The Court explained that the word “person” has been substituted, which means that any evidence submitted during maintenance proceedings must be in the presence of the party to whom the payment order is directed.
The Court observed that:
“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.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Revision and affirmed the order of the Family Court.
Case Name: Anshu Gupta v. Adwait Anand @ Devansh
Diary Number: 133/2013
Bench: Justice Pankaj Purohit