A landmark ruling was delivered by Justice Pankaj Purohit of the Uttarakhand High Court, asserting that both parents, irrespective of gender, are liable for the maintenance of their child. The judgment draws upon the recent amendment to Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), emphasizing that the term 'person' includes individuals of all genders.
This legal milestone emerged from a case brought forth by Anshu Gupta, a woman challenging a 2013 family court order that obligated her to provide a monthly maintenance of Rs 2,000 for her son. Gupta, a government teacher, had been married to Nathu Lal and had a child before their 2006 divorce. Nathu Lal claimed financial constraints and sought maintenance, prompting the family court's directive for Gupta to pay Rs 2,000 monthly.
Gupta's counsel argued that Section 125 of the CrPC only imposed the maintenance duty on fathers, not mothers. However, Nathu Lal's representation countered that the term "person" encompasses all genders and should not be limited to "father."
The High Court, taking into account the amendment to Section 125, highlighted that the term "person" now includes both male and female entities. The ruling underlines that any parent, regardless of gender, possessing sufficient means but neglecting or refusing to provide for their minor child, legitimate or otherwise, is liable for child maintenance.
The Court acknowledged Gupta's stable occupation as a government teacher, earning around Rs 1 lakh in salary. Consequently, the 2013 family court verdict was upheld, affirming the absence of any illegality or impropriety in the judgment. This landmark ruling not only highlights the evolving interpretation of legal statutes but also reinforces the principle of shared parental responsibility, regardless of gender.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
