Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High 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