MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |    

"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

 

Similar News