Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

"Liability to Maintain a Minor Child Not Solely the Father's Responsibility," Uttarakhand High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Nainital, 09 August 2023 - In a significant ruling today, the Uttarakhand High Court clarified the legal obligations of parents regarding child maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Justice Pankaj Purohit, who presided over the case, emphasized that both parents, mother and father, are "competent enough to maintain" their minor child.

The case revolved around Smt. Anshu Gupta (revisionist), a government teacher, who was directed by the Family Court of Udham Singh Nagar to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000 to her minor son, Adwait Anand, from her previous marriage. The minor son, represented by his father Nathu Lal, filed for maintenance, citing his father's financial limitations and his mother's stable income as a government teacher.

The High Court pointed out the critical role both parents play in a child's upbringing. Justice Purohit stated that "it was the duty of the revisionist to contribute in maintenance and education of the respondent-minor." He also noted that "Nathu Lal Gupta (father) and revisionist-Smt. Anshu Gupta (mother) were competent enough to maintain respondent-minor."

The Court examined Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C., which outlines the responsibility for maintenance. Justice Purohit rejected the argument that "any person" referred solely to the father. The court concluded that both parents have an obligation to support their minor children financially.

The revisionist's counsel argued that past legal rulings, including Raj Kumari vs. Yashoda Devi and Mst. Dhulki vs. State, indicated that only fathers are liable for child maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, these arguments were not persuasive enough for the Court.

Upholding the Family Court's decision, the High Court directed Smt. Anshu Gupta to continue paying a monthly sum of Rs. 2,000 for the maintenance of her minor son, Adwait Anand.

This landmark judgment could have broad implications for family law in India, reiterating that both parents have equal responsibilities towards their children, including financial obligations. Legal experts say this case will likely serve as an important reference in similar cases involving parental responsibilities.

Date of Decision August 9, 2023

Smt. Anshu Gupta vs Adwait Anand @ Devansh

 

Latest Legal News