Highlight
On August 9, 2023, Justice Pankaj Purohit of the Uttarakhand High Court ruled that both parents, not just the father, are responsible for child maintenance. This decision is based on recent amendments to Section 125 of the CrPC, interpreting the term “person” to include both genders.
What does section 125 of CrPC suggest?
If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain;
1.his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
2.his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
3.his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
4.his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself
A Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.
What happened in the case?
The case is about Anshu Gupta’s petition against a 2013 family court order requiring her to pay Rs 2,000 per month for her son’s upkeep. Gupta, a government teacher, married Nathu Lal in 1999, and they had a son (Saubhagya) before divorcing in 2006 due to irreconcilable differences, as explained by her lawyer, Vivek Rastogi.
Nathu Lal, citing his financial difficulties, asked for maintenance, claiming he couldn’t afford their child’s education and upbringing. As a result, the family court ordered Gupta, who earned Rs 27,000 per month, to pay Rs 2,000 each month for their son’s support.
Gupta argued that after her separation from Nathu Lal, she remarried Babu Lal and had another son. After Babu Lal died in an accident, she became responsible for both her son and Babu Lal’s parents.
Gupta’s lawyer challenged the family court’s ruling, stating that Section 125 of the CrPC traditionally required only fathers to pay maintenance. In response, Nathu Lal’s lawyer argued that the term “person” in the CrPC includes both genders and should not be limited to fathers.
Analysis
Section 125 (1) of the CrPC. clearly states that the responsibility to support a minor child falls on “any person” with sufficient means who neglects or refuses to do so. This “person” can be ordered by the Magistrate to pay a monthly maintenance allowance deemed appropriate.
The term “person” in Section 125 (1) CrPC. refers to both males and females and isn’t limited to fathers. Section 2 (y) of CrPC. states that words not defined within it should be understood as defined in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to Section 8 of the IPC, the pronoun “he” and its variations apply to any person, male or female.
Section 11 of the IPC defines “person” to include any company, association, or group, whether incorporated or not.
Therefore, a careful reading of these definitions indicates that the term “person” in Section 125 (1) CrPC. includes both mothers and fathers.
Judgment
Honourable Justice Pankaj Purohit thoughtfully reviewed the case laws cited by the revisionist’s counsel. In the case of Raj Kumari vs. Yashodha Devi & another, where a married daughter was directed to maintain her mother, the circumstances were different, rendering it irrelevant to this case. Similarly, in Mst. Dhulki vs. State, the Rajasthan High Court relied on Section 488(6) of the old CrPC., which specified that evidence be taken in the presence of the husband or father, implying that only they could be held responsible for maintenance.
However, the revised CrPC. of 1973 eliminated this sub-section. Instead, Section 126(2) of the new CrPC. mandates that evidence in maintenance cases be taken in the presence of the “person” against whom the order is proposed, or their representative. This change replaces the old terms “father” or “husband” with “person.”
Justice Purohit emphasized that the term “person” in the current Section 125 CrPC. includes both males and females. Therefore, when it comes to maintaining a minor child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, both the mother and the father with sufficient means are liable if they neglect or refuse to provide support.
Written by-Name – Devesh Sharma, completed 4th Year, BBA LLB, from UPES Dehradun
