Uttaranchal High Court: In a case wherein, the revision was directed against the judgment and order dated 30-03-2013 passed by the Family Court of Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand whereby a petition made by the respondent, i.e., the minor son of the revisionist for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC') was allowed partly and the revisionist, was directed to pay maintenance to the respondent from the date of filing of the petition till the respondent attained majority, Pankaj Purohit, J.*, while dismissing the present criminal revision opined that under the provision of CrPC, a ‘person' would include both male and female and further, in reference to a minor child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, mother or father having sufficient means if neglects and refuses to maintain such minor child would be held liable to pay the maintenance of such child.
Background
In the present case, after dissolution of the marriage between the respondent's parents, the respondent was living with his father and the revisionist never visited the respondent which deprived the respondent of love and affection of his mother. The petition for maintenance was filed in 2011 by the respondent through his natural guardian against the revisionist in Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar. It was also submitted that the financial condition of the respondent's father deteriorated, and he had no means to provide quality education, upbringing, and food to the respondent. The respondent also submitted that it was the duty of the mother also along with father to maintain her child. It was further pleaded that as against the financial condition of the respondent’s father, the revisionist was a Government Teacher and was getting about Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 30,000 per month as she was posted in primary school. Thus, based on this, the respondent prayed for Rs. 10,000 from the revisionist.
The Judge, Family Court directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 2000 for maintenance of the respondent. The impugned judgment and order were assailed mainly on the ground of Section 125 of the CrPC, that there was a duty to maintain the minor children by the father and not on the mother, therefore, the revisionist was wrongly fastened with the liability to pay the maintenance for the respondent.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the provisions of Section 125(1) of the CrPC made it clear that the liability to maintain a minor child was always on “any person”, if he had sufficient means neglects and refuses to maintain a minor child and such “person” was directed to give the monthly allowance as maintenance at the rate deemed fit to the Magistrate. The Court further observed that “the person” word denoted not only the male, but a female gender and it could not be said that such person could only qualify father and not the mother.
The Court observed that both the respondent's father and the revisionist were competent enough to maintain the respondent but since the respondent was living with his father, it was the duty of the revisionist to contribute in maintenance and education of the respondent. The Court opined that since the revisionist had equally maintained the responsibility of the second son, she shall pay a part sum for maintenance of the respondent.
The Court noted that the revisionist was a Government Teacher, who would be getting a minimum Rs. 1,00,000 as salary and as such, there was no illegality and impropriety in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Judge, Family Court. The Court opined that according to the language of the Section 125 of the CrPC, a ‘person' would include both male and female and in reference to a minor child whether legitimate or illegitimate mother or father having sufficient means if neglects and refuses to maintain such minor child would be held liable to pay the maintenance of such child.
The Court held that the present criminal revision had no force and the same was accordingly dismissed and the judgment and order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar was accordingly, affirmed.
[Anshu Gupta v. Adwait Anand, 2023 SCC OnLine Utt 916, decided on 09-08-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Revisionist: Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. Bhupendra Prasad, counsel holding brief of Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Counsel
*Judgment authored by: Justice Pankaj Purohit
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
