Madras High Court Dismisses Man's Maintenance Claim Against Former Daughter-In-Law, Warns Against Misusing Child's Welfare To Harass Mother

Justice Victoria Gowri said that the father-in-law had made a misconceived attempt to disturb the life of his former daughter-in-law, who was now remarried and living a peaceful life. The court added that parents, who have lawfully chosen new paths, must be permitted to live in peace.

“This Court deprecates such misuse of maintenance provisions to reopen closed chapters of matrimonial litigation and reiterates that co-parenting after divorce must be guided by cooperation, not confrontation. Parents who have lawfully chosen new paths must be permitted to live in peace, while ensuring that the child's welfare is safeguarded in the manner mutually agreed upon,” the court said.

The court also took note of the vulnerabilities being faced by women in the country, who, even after remarriage, were dragged into marital disputes. The court underlined that it was vigilant to uphold the dignity, autonomy, and peace of womanhood, which was essential to protect the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“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,” the court observed.

The court was hearing the criminal revision petition filed by the father-in-law against the order of the Family Court, Karur, dismissing a petition filed by him under Section 125 CrPC, claiming maintenance from his former daughter-in-law, for the minor grandson.

The child was born in 2010. Since differences arose between the spouses, they filed a petition for mutual divorce, which was allowed in 2014. At the time of divorce, the father had undertaken to maintain the child and not to seek any contribution or financial support from the mother. After the divorce, both parties remarried and have been living separate and independent lives.

The Family Court had dismissed the father-in-law's petition, noting that he was not the guardian of the child and thus had no locus standi to file the petition. The Family Court also took note of the mutual consent divorce decree, where the father had undertaken to maintain the child and observed that in view of the same, the mother could not be directed to pay maintenance.

The father-in-law argued that both parents had remarried and were leading a prosperous life without any concern for the minor child. He argued that the mother, being gainfully employed in a bank and earning a lucrative salary, must bear a share of responsibility towards the child's maintenance, especially for his education and medical expenses.

The mother, on the other hand, argued that the petition was an abuse of court procedure, filed only to disturb her peace and dignity. She submitted that the father, who was the child's natural guardian, was alive, employed, and fully capable of maintaining the child. She pointed out that the father-in-law had not even impleaded the father of the child. She thus called for dismissing the plea.

The court agreed with the finding of the Family Court and noted that in the present case, the father was very much alive and financially capable of maintaining the child. The court added that unless the grandfather (father-in-law) was appointed as the guardian of the child by a competent court, he could not assume the capacity of a natural guardian and file legal proceedings representing the child.

The court also added that when an arrangement had been made by the parties at the time of mutual divorce, neither of the parties could indirectly modify or nullify its effect under the guise of new proceedings. The court noted that the father-in-law's attempt to resurrect the issue of maintenance ran contrary to the sanctity of the consent decree.

The court further observed that while it was the moral and legal duty of the parents to co-parent and contribute to the child's well-being, it must be exercised within the bounds of mutual respect. The court added that any attempt by the family to use the child as an instrument to reopen marital discord amounts to judicial harassment and undermines the principle of co-parenting.

The court added that the mother's remarriage formed part of her right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the courts could not permit former in-laws to intrude into the privacy of persons by instituting repeated litigations.

“The respondent–mother's legal obligation cannot be resurrected merely because she is employed. Her remarriage, stability, and peace are constitutionally protected aspects of her right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Courts cannot permit former in-laws to intrude into that privacy by instituting repeated litigations under the pretext of child welfare when the legal guardian is alive and responsible,” the court said.

The court thus dismissed the revision petition.

Counsel for petitioner: Mr.S.Prabhu

Counsel for respondents: Mr.J.Barathan

Case Title: Minor v. P

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 419

Case No: CRL RC(MD)No.1148 of 2024