Madras High Court: While hearing a petition filed under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), wherein the paternal grandfather sought maintenance from the mother for the minor grandson, a Single Judge Bench of L. Victoria Gowri, J., held that since the natural guardian, the father was alive, financially capable, and bound by the divorce decree to maintain the child, the grandfather lacked locus standi to pursue the claim. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasising that former in-laws cannot intrude into the privacy of a remarried spouse by instituting repeated litigations under the pretext of child welfare when the legal guardian is alive and responsible.
Background:
The petitioner is a minor child born out of a marriage solemnized in March 2009. After differences arose between the spouses and reconciliation attempts failed, both parties filed a petition in 2013 before the Subordinate Judge seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. In February 2014, the marriage was dissolved by decree, which specifically recorded that custody of the minor would vest with the father, while the mother would not claim maintenance from her former husband. The father undertook to maintain the child and not seek financial support from the mother.
Following the divorce, both biological parents remarried and began living separate and independent lives. The minor has since been residing under the care of paternal grandparents. The father, employed with the Airport Authority of India, has been paying a monthly sum towards the child’s maintenance, in addition to depositing a fixed sum in the child’s name and maintaining a life insurance policy.
A petition under Section 125 CrPC was filed before the Family Court, which dismissed it on the ground that the paternal grandfather, not being the natural guardian, had no locus standi to maintain such a petition without appointment as guardian by a competent court. The Court held that the natural guardian, the father, was alive, financially capable, and bound by the divorce decree to maintain the child. It further noted that both the father and grandfather possessed sufficient means, and therefore the petition lacked legal foundation and bona fides.
It was argued that both biological parents, after divorce, remarried and were leading prosperous lives without concern for the minor. It was further submitted that the mother, being gainfully employed, must also share responsibility for the child’s maintenance, particularly for educational and medical expenses, as the grandfather’s pension was insufficient. In response, the mother contended that the petition was an abuse of process intended to disturb her settled family life, emphasising that the divorce decree exempted her from maintenance liability and that the father, as natural guardian, was fully capable of maintaining the child.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the paternal grandfather, unless appointed as a guardian by a competent Court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, cannot assume the capacity of a natural guardian or file legal proceedings representing the child. Therefore, the Court held that the Family Court’s conclusion that the grandfather lacked locus standi was legally sound.
The Court observed that the parties voluntarily entered into a mutual agreement under which custody of the minor was vested with the father, the father undertook to maintain the minor child, the mother renounced any claim for maintenance from her husband, and both parties consented to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. The Court highlighted that such an arrangement, once accepted and recorded by a competent Court, attains finality, and neither party can indirectly modify or nullify its effect. The Court further held that the attempt by the petitioner’s grandfather to resurrect the issue of maintenance, by targeting the mother after years of her remarriage, ran contrary to the sanctity of that consent decree.
The Court observed that the mother has lawfully remarried, is now the mother of two children from her second marriage and has not interfered in the life of her former husband or his family. The Court highlighted that while it is indeed the moral and legal duty of both parents to co-parent and contribute to the child’s well-being, such responsibility must be exercised within the bounds of mutual respect and final judicial determinations. The Court held that any attempt by one family branch to use the child as an instrument to reopen past marital discord amounts to judicial harassment and undermines the principle of co-parenting through peaceful separation.
The Court further observed that the institution of marriage and its dissolution carry not only emotional but also societal implications, where two adults, through mutual consent, dissolve their marriage, the law expects them to extend parental cooperation without interfering in each other’s reconstituted family lives. The Court held that true co-parenting does not consist in litigating against one another but in ensuring that the child’s welfare is secured through agreed means.
The Court noted that the father’s financial capacity was undisputed, and the mother’s legal obligation could not be resurrected merely because she is employed. The Court highlighted that her remarriage, stability, and peace are constitutionally protected aspects of her right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court consequently held that former in-laws cannot intrude into that privacy by instituting repeated litigations under the pretext of child welfare when the legal guardian is alive and responsible.
The Court found no infirmity in the order of the Family Court, Karur. The Court emphasised that the present revision was a misconceived attempt by the petitioner’s grandfather to disturb the respondent’s settled and peaceful family life, notwithstanding that the biological father of the minor was alive, capable, and bound by his own undertaking in the mutual consent divorce decree to maintain the child.
The Court deprecated such misuse of maintenance provisions to reopen closed chapters of matrimonial litigation and reiterated that co-parenting after divorce must be guided by cooperation, not confrontation. The Court emphasised that 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.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition by confirming the order passed by the Family Court, Karur with no costs.
[X v. Y, CRL RC(MD)No.1148 of 2025, decided on 13-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: S. Prabhu
For the Respondent: J. Barathan
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
