"Herself makes about 1 lac as govt teacher": Uttarakhand HC rejects plea by woman against maintenance order by family court towards minor son

The Uttarakhand High Court has said that there is a sea-change in the educational and economic status of women as in the 21st century, most of them now are well educated and are in gainful employment. The court observed so while rejecting a plea by a woman against an order to pay maintenance to her minor son from her previous marriage.

"The provisions of Section 125 CrPC have already been changed, and according to the language of the present provision, in the opinion of this court, '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," a single judge bench of Pankaj Purohit said.

Accordingly, the court rejected the revision plea filed by a woman, working as a school teacher, against the family court's order of March 30, 2013, directing her to pay Rs 2,000 per month to her minor son.

The woman's marriage solemnised in 1999 was dissolved in 2006 by mutual agreement. Against the maintenance order, she contended that she had married again but her second husband had died before the birth of their son. She had to take care of her in-laws and the son from her second marriage.

Her counsel also contended that the words 'any person' or 'such person' appearing in Section 125 CrPC would mean father not the mother.

The counsel for her minor son submitted that there is no illegality in the judgment and order by which a meagre sum of Rs 2,000 was awarded, as maintenance, from the date of application, against the revisionist, who admittedly is a government school teacher. He said that the woman's previous husband earned his living by running a tempo and could not afford a good education for their son.

Referring to the legal position, the bench said, "The provisions of Section 125 (1) CrPC makes it clear that the liability to maintain a minor child is always on 'any person' and if he has sufficient means but neglects and refuses to maintain a minor child then such 'person' can be directed to give the monthly allowance as maintenance at the rate deemed fit to the Magistrate."

"The 'person' word denotes not only the male but a female gender and it cannot be said that such person can only qualify as father and not the mother," the bench added.

The court also cited sub-Section (2) of Section 126 CrPC that there is no such word “father” or “husband” there, as it was there in the old CrPC Section 488 sub-Section (6).

"Now, in place of 'father' or 'husband', 'person' has been incorporated and it is provided that all evidence to such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made," the bench said.

The court refused to rely upon two judgments of 1959 and 1977 cited by the revisionist, saying those had been passed in the backdrop of the fact that women were mostly uneducated and unemployed.

"The revisionist herself is a government teacher, who at present, would be getting a minimum Rs 1,00,000 as salary and as such, there is no illegality and impropriety in the impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2013 passed by Judge, Family Court," the court said.

Case Title: Smt. Anshu Gupta v. Adwait Anand @ Devansh