Promotees Allowed to Challenge Provisional Seniority List in Dispute Between Direct Recruitment and Promotion: Kerala High Court Frivolous Defenses Cannot Justify Leave to Defend Under Order XXXVII CPC Delhi High Court Candidates Merely Enrolled in Final Year B.V.Sc. Program Ineligible for Veterinary Officer Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court Manufacturing or Sale of Garments Does Not Attract Copyright Protection; Procedural Violations Under Trade Marks Act Renders Prosecution Unsustainable: P&H High Court Ownership Alone Is Not Sufficient to Maintain Eviction Suit; Plaintiff Must Qualify as a Lessor Under Lease Agreement: Calcutta High Court Findings Based on Evidence Cannot Be Interfered With in a Second Appeal Without Substantial Question of Law: AP High Court Chain of Circumstances Broken: Inferences Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Kerala High Court Bail | Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21 of the Constitution: Bombay High Court Encroachment on a Common Lane Gives Rise to Recurring Cause of Action: Madras High Court Holds Limitation Act Inapplicable to Pathway Disputes Reproductive Autonomy Includes the Right to Abort Without Spousal Consent: P&H High Court Access to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 is Not an Absolute Bar Against MSEFC Awards: Supreme Court Refers Key Questions on Writ Jurisdiction to Larger Bench Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted for Title and Mortgage Disputes Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court Principle of Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Supreme Court Panchayat Law | Mandatory Compliance With Section 34 And Rule 3 Is Non-Negotiable In Resignation Cases: Bombay High Court Quashes Resignation Of Upa-Sarpanch Recovery of Bullet Fired from Accused’s Weapon Crucial: PH High Court Reaffirms Conviction in Murder Case Injured Witness Evidence Carries Built-in Reliability Unless Contradicted Significantly: Kerala High Court Partly Allows Appeal in Murder Case Civil Dispute with Criminal Elements Cannot Be Quashed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Karnataka High Court Issuance of Summons Under Section 91 CrPC During Preliminary Verification is Without Jurisdiction: High Court of J&K and Ladakh Article 21 Prevails Over NDPS Act’s Section 37 Restrictions in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Once a Property is Waqf, It Remains Waqf Perpetually: Calcutta High Court Affirms No Secular Ownership Can Derive from Waqf Properties Surveillance Without Opportunity to Object Violates Articles 14, 19, and 21: Allahabad High Court Quashes Class-B History Sheets Mandatory Provisions of Order XXI CPC Were Violated, Rendering the Auction Sale Illegal: Punjab and Haryana 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