‘Father’s obligation absolute’: Minor kids can’t be denied maintenance due to mother’s remarriage, says court

Justice Padam Narain Mishra found that the family court had not considered their daily needs or the father’s statutory duty towards them. (AI-enhanced image)

Can’t extinguish minor’s right

• Examining the issue, the high court reiterated that Section 125 (maintenance of wives, children and parents) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is a measure of social justice intended to protect women, children, and parents from destitution and vagrancy.
• Referring to several Supreme Court decisions, the court emphasised that maintenance laws are enacted to prevent financial hardship and that the welfare of children remains of paramount importance.
• The court observed that while a wife may lose her entitlement to maintenance in certain circumstances, including remarriage, such disqualification cannot automatically deprive minor children of their independent right to seek maintenance from their father.
• Under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, a wife living in adultery or a remarried wife may not be entitled to claim maintenance from her former husband, but this disqualification cannot “automatically extinguish the independent statutory right of the minor children” to claim maintenance from their father, it noted.

‘Order silent on needs of kids’

• The court found that the family court had failed to independently examine the children’s entitlement to maintenance and had not considered their daily needs or the biological father’s statutory duty towards them.
• The impugned order is conspicuously silent on the children’s requirements, including their educational expenses, day-to-day needs, and the statutory obligation of the father to maintain them.
• It further held that proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act and maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC operate in different fields, and the pendency of custody or guardianship disputes cannot be a ground to deny maintenance to minor children.
• The court, therefore, set aside the impugned order insofar as it rejected the maintenance claim of the two minors.
• It, however, declined to record any conclusive finding on the issue of her alleged remarriage in the present plea.
• It remitted the matter back to the family court for fresh consideration of the children’s maintenance claim in accordance with the law after hearing both sides.
• The family court shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, the court added.

Maintenance plea

The family court had dismissed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, seeking maintenance from the children’s father primarily on the ground that the wife had allegedly remarried another person and was therefore not entitled to maintenance.

Before the high court, the petitioners argued that even if the allegation of remarriage were assumed to be true, the claim of the minor children stood on an independent footing and could not have been rejected merely because of their mother’s alleged remarriage. They also contended that no conclusive finding regarding the alleged remarriage had been recorded by any competent court.

Opposing the plea, the husband’s counsel submitted that the family court had recorded a well-reasoned finding with regard to the alleged remarriage of the woman on the basis of the material brought before it.

It was further submitted that proceedings relating to the custody and guardianship of the children were already pending between the parties.