Madras HC Raps Grandfather for Misusing Child's Maintenance Case to Harass Remarried Mother

The Madras High Court recently upheld the dismissal of a maintenance case filed on behalf of a minor boy by his paternal grandfather against the child’s mother.

Court noted that the mother had already remarried and that she and her former husband had obtained a mutual consent divorce under which the father received full custody and undertook to bear the child’s entire maintenance. As part of the settlement, the mother had agreed neither to claim nor to pay maintenance, and both parents later went on to remarry.

Justice L. Victoria Gowri termed the petition an “attempt to disturb the calm and dignity” of the woman’s new matrimonial life. Court said the petition was essentially a misuse of legal proceedings meant to reopen past marital disputes that had already been settled.

"It is indeed the moral and legal duty of both parents to co-parent and contribute to the child’s well-being. However, such responsibility must be exercised within the bounds of mutual respect and final judicial determinations," Justice Gowri said. The judge emphasised that when the parents of the child had consciously agreed to a framework for the child’s custody and maintenance, that arrangement had to be honoured. 

The 13-year-old boy’s paternal grandfather filed a criminal revision petition before the high court, challenging a 2023 order of the family court in Karur that had dismissed his plea seeking maintenance for the child from the boy’s mother.

The family court had held that the paternal grandfather, not being the natural guardian, had no locus standi to maintain the maintenance petition in the absence of appointment as minor's guardian by a competent court. The family court had also held that the grandfather and father had sufficient means to support the child and that the maintenance claim lacked bona fides.

Before the high court, the counsel for the grandfather claimed that the child's both biological parents, despite being financially stable after their respective remarriages, had neglected him. The grandfather argued that the mother, who works in a bank, should also contribute to the child’s upkeep, especially for education and medical expenses.

On the other hand, the child's mother opposed the revision, calling it an attempt to drag her back into matrimonial disputes long after she had lawfully moved on. Her counsel argued that the father earns around Rs. 1 lakh per month working at Trichy Airport, and the grandfather had not even impleaded him in the maintenance case. The divorce decree, she said, finally settled the issue of custody and maintenance, and could not be reopened under the guise of a fresh criminal proceeding.

Justice Gowri noted that the child had been residing with his paternal grandparents, while the father, employed with the Airport Authority of India, had been paying monthly maintenance, maintaining a life insurance policy, and depositing Rs. 1.6 lakh in the child’s name.

While dealing with the issue, the judge made strong observations on the broader pattern of misusing maintenance proceedings to reopen long-settled matrimonial disputes. It noted that the minor had been drawn into litigation not for his welfare but as a tool to revive past hostility, and warned that such attempts amount to judicial harassment, particularly when directed at a woman who has lawfully remarried and moved on with her life.

"This Court cannot remain oblivious to the persistent vulnerabilities faced by women, who, even after lawfully resolving their marital disputes and rebuilding their lives with dignity, are often dragged back into the shadows of hostility under one guise or another. The Court, therefore, stands vigilant to uphold the dignity, autonomy, and peace of womanhood, which are integral to the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," Justice Gowri said.

She agreed with the trial court's findings that Section 125 CrPC allows a minor to seek maintenance from a parent only through a natural guardian. A grandfather can represent the child only if appointed as guardian by a competent court, which had not been done in this case. The judge further held that the mutual consent divorce decree could not be indirectly undermined by re-litigating issues that the parents had already settled. Therefore, she held that the petition was not only legally untenable but also carried an improper motive.

Finding no error in the family court’s reasoning, Justice Gowri dismissed the criminal revision and confirmed the order dated December 21, 2023, passed by the Family Court, Karur

Case Title: Minor.Vikash Rep. by his Grandfather and Guardian Karuppanan vs. Priya

Order Date: November 13, 2025

Bench: Justice L. Victoria Gowri