The single judge bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Smt. Anshu Gupta Vs Adwait Anand @ Devansh held that “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.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the petition was filed by the respondent- a minor through his natural guardian and the respondent is the son of the revisionist and the Nathu Lal. The marriage of Nathu Lal and the revisionist was dissolved and the minor was residing with his father- Nathu Lal. It was alleged that the financial condition of the father is not well and he had no means to provide for better education, upbringing, and food to the minor and it is the duty of the mother along with the father to maintain their child. Therefore, the respondent prayed for the maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month from the revisionist. The family judge directed the revisionist to pay only Rs 2,000 for the maintenance of the respondent-minor.
Contentions of the Appellant
The learned counsel for the Appellant contended that as per the provision of section 125 Crpc, the duty to maintain a minor child is only on the father and not on the mother, and the words Such person” or “any person” means father and not the mother, according to the learned counsel for the revisionist.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant relied upon the judgment titled Raj Kumari vs. Yashoda Devi and another, and Mst. Dhulki vs. State.
Contentions of the Respondent
The learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned family judge.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that the provisions of Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C. make it clear that the responsibility for maintaining a minor child always rests with "any person," and that "person" is required to pay the monthly allowance as maintenance to the Magistrate at the rate deemed appropriate if he has the means to do so.
It was furthermore observed that the term "the person" refers to both male and female genders, hence it is incorrect to say that this term only applies to fathers.
It was noted that the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. have already been changed, and based on the language of the current Section 125 Cr.P.C., this Court believes that "person" includes both males and females. In addition, this Court believes that in reference to a minor child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, a mother or father with sufficient means who neglects and refuses to maintain such a minor child will be held responsible for paying the maintenance of such child.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that there exists no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned family judge.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Court dismissed the criminal revision application.
Case Title: Smt. Anshu Gupta Vs Adwait Anand @ Devansh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Case No.: Criminal Revision No.133 of 2013
Advocate for the Revisionists: Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Bhupendra Prasad, learned counsel
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source : YouTube.com
