Children's Maintenance Claim Does Not Perish With Mother's Death: Rajasthan High Court Permits Grandmother To Continue Proceedings

Rajasthan High Court upheld trial court's order that allowed maternal grand-mother to represent minors in a suit for maintenance filed against their father, after the death of the minors' mother who had initiated the maitenance claim.

The bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal held that custody proceedings were separate from maintenance proceedings, and pendency of the former could not affect or extinguish the independent right of the minor children to claim maintenance under Section 144, BNSS.

“The custody proceedings concern the question as to with whom the minors should reside, keeping their welfare as the paramount consideration, whereas proceedings under Section 144 BNSS concern the statutory obligation to maintain them. Thus, the petitioner's claim of natural guardianship or his having instituted custody proceedings does not, by itself, determine or extinguish the children's claim for maintenance...

The claim of the children does not perish with the death of the person who had initially instituted the proceedings on their behalf. The petitioner's assertion of natural guardianship and his willingness to take custody are matters which may have significance in the custody proceedings, but they do not, in themselves, furnish a ground for extinguishing the minors' pending maintenance claim”.

The Court further opined that by allowing the maternal grand-mother to represent the children in the maintenance matter, the Court was neither determining the ultimate question of custody nor declaring the grand-mother to be the permanent guardian of the minors.

For context, a suit for maintenance was filed by the children's mother against the petitioner. At the same time, petitioner filed for dissolution of marriage, which was allowed ex-parte in November 2025. In February 2026, minors' mother passed away and the petitioner filed an application seeking children's custody from the grand-mother.

Subsequently, the grand-mother filed an application seeking permission to pursue the maintenance proceedings on behalf of the children, and this application was allowed by the trial court. This order was challenged before the Court.

The petitioner argued that him, being the biological father and natural guardian of the children, was ready and willing to take the custody of the children and maintain them according to his means. It was submitted that the maternal grandmother could not claim custody in preference of the natural guardian.

After hearing the contentions, the Court held that the petitioner's contentions regarding custody, natural guardianship and willingness to maintain children, involved disputed question of facts that could not be adjudicated in maintenance proceedings, neither could be made a ground for terminating the maintenance proceedings.

“Following the death of the mother, the maintenance claim of the minors must necessarily be represented by some person competent to pursue it. The questions of custody and maintenance operate in distinct fields and may proceed independently, subject to the orders passed by the competent Court.”

Accordingly, the Court upheld the order of the trial court, holding that it was justified in permitting the grand-mother, who was presently caring for the minors, to continue the pending maintenance proceedings on their behalf.