Maternal Grandmother Taking Care Of Child Can Maintain Minor's Plea Under Sec 125 CrPC: P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking maintenance on behalf of a minor child is maintainable even when filed by the maternal grandmother, if she is the one actually caring for the child.

The Court underscored that beneath the technical objection of maintainability lay a deeper issue—whether a minor's statutory right to maintenance can be frustrated merely because the petition was not instituted by the mother.

Justice Neerja K. Kalson said, "a maternal grandmother who is in actual care and custody of her granddaughter, and who is bearing the burden of her upbringing in circumstances where the parental relationship has broken down, has sufficient eligibility and entitlement to maintain proceedings under Section125 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the minor child. The foundation of such entitlement does not lie in an abstract claim of personal right, but in the child's own statutory right and in the grandmother's de facto role as the person safeguarding that right."

Child's Right Is Paramount, Not Procedural Formalities

Rejecting the father's objection to maintainability, the Court observed that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are not to be construed through “the narrow lens of procedural formalism,” but as a welfare measure aimed at preventing destitution and neglect.

It emphasized that the right being enforced is that of the minor child—not of the grandmother or even the mother. The person approaching the Court merely represents that right.

“A minor child stands on the highest footing of protection,” the Court noted, adding that the provision must be interpreted in a manner that advances its social justice objective rather than defeats it through technical pleas.

Maintenance Is A Right, Not Charity

The Court elaborated that “maintenance” is not limited to bare subsistence but includes a dignified standard of living—covering food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical needs.

Relying on Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, the Court reiterated that Section 125 CrPC falls within the constitutional sweep of Articles 15(3) and 39, and must receive a liberal interpretation to fulfil its remedial purpose.

Prior Settlement Does Not Extinguish Child's Claim

In the case, the father contended that a one-time settlement amount paid at the time of divorce—including a portion earmarked for the child—barred any subsequent claim for maintenance.

The Court rejected this argument, holding that a child's right to maintenance is independent, continuing, and cannot be extinguished by private arrangements between parents.

It observed that the needs of a growing child are dynamic and cannot be conclusively determined at a single point in time. While prior payments may be considered in determining the quantum, they do not affect the maintainability of the claim.

Grandmother Has Locus If She Is De Facto Caregiver

On the key issue of locus standi, the Court held that strict notions of guardianship cannot be imported into proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.

Recognizing social realities, the Court observed that in many cases of marital breakdown, it is the maternal grandmother who assumes the role of primary caregiver—providing stability, emotional support, and day-to-day care.

Where the grandmother is in actual custody and is discharging parental responsibilities, she has sufficient representative capacity to institute proceedings on behalf of the child, the Court held.

“To deny her that capacity would not punish the grandmother—it would prejudice the child,” the Court remarked.

Welfare Of Child Overrides Technical Objections

The Court further held that the mere existence of the mother does not negate the grandmother's role as the de facto caregiver. Insisting on formal guardianship in such circumstances would impose an unnecessary burden inconsistent with the object of the law.

Drawing from precedents including Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal and Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, the Court reiterated that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and must override technical objections.

Petition Held Maintainable

Concluding that the maternal grandmother had sufficient standing to maintain the petition on behalf of the minor, the Court held that:

The child's statutory right to maintenance remains unaffected by parental settlement;

The objection based on the mother being the natural guardian is insufficient to defeat the claim;

Procedural irregularities in representation cannot override substantive entitlement.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the father's petition challenging maintainability and directed the trial court to proceed with adjudicating the claim on merits, including determination of maintenance.

Title: KXXXX v. GXXXXX

Mr. H.K. Brinda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Vir Singh Behl, Legal Aid Counsel, Mr. Jugraj Singh Chouhan, Advocate and Mr. Sagar Bansal, Advocate for the respondent.