‘Child made a pawn in parents’ marital discord’: Madras HC rejects plea by minor’s grandfather seeking maintenance

Disapproving the misuse of maintenance provisions to reopen the closed chapters of matrimonial litigation, the court held that co-parenting after divorce must be guided by ‘cooperation, not confrontation’.

“Parents who have lawfully chosen new paths must be permitted to live in peace, while ensuring that the child’s welfare is safeguarded in the manner mutually agreed upon,” the court added.

‘Misconceived bid to disturb mother’s peaceful life’

While dismissing the plea, the court described it as a ‘misconceived attempt’ by the minor’s grandfather to disturb the mother’s settled and peaceful family life despite having his own son who is alive, capable, and bound by his own undertaking in the mutual consent divorce decree to maintain the child.

Authoring the judgment, Justice Gowri said, “Marriage today is no longer a sacrament, but an art of conciliation and adjustment.”

The minor’s grandfather approached the high court, arguing that the mother, a bank employee, had been earning a substantial salary and therefore must share responsibility for the child’s maintenance, particularly for his educational and medical expenses.

Advocate J Barathan, representing the minor’s mother, argued that the petition was filed with the sole purpose of disturbing the mother’s peace and dignity, who has since remarried and started a new family. It was further argued that the mutual consent divorce decree expressly recorded that the custody of the minor would remain with the father, and the mother would not claim nor be made liable for maintenance.

‘Women often dragged back into shadows of hostility’

Noting that the court stands vigilant to upholding the dignity, autonomy, and peace of womanhood, Justice Gowri observed, “The court cannot remain oblivious to the persistent vulnerabilities faced by women, who, even after lawfully resolving their marital disputes and rebuilding their lives with dignity, are often dragged back into the shadows of hostility under one guise or another.”

The minor child, who is currently living with his paternal grandparents, was born in 2010. His parents divorced by mutual consent in February 2014. The child’s custody was given to his father, with the mother renouncing any future claim for maintenance from her estranged husband. Both parents of the minor remarried and were living separate and independent lives.

Earlier, the child’s grandfather moved the family court seeking maintenance from his divorced daughter-in-law. However, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the paternal grandfather had no locus standi and his biological father, as well as the grandfather, had all sufficient means to maintain the child.