The decision was based on a recent change to Section 125 of the CrPC...
Digital Desk: On Friday, a single bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit of the Uttarakhand High Court delivered what judicial observers called a landmark judgement, stating that both parents, not only the father, were liable for child support.
The decision was based on a recent change to Section 125 of the CrPC (related to the maintenance of spouses, children, and parents) and an interpretation of the word 'person' to include both genders.
According to senior High Court attorney Kartikey Hari Gupta, "the court has interpreted the true legislative intent behind the purpose of using the word 'person' in Section 125." "In my opinion, this is a first-of-its-kind judgement in the country," he continued.
The case involves a petition filed in the High Court by a lady, Anshu Gupta, challenging a 2013 family court ruling requiring her to pay Rs 2,000 per month in maintenance to her son. In 1999, Gupta, a government teacher, married Nathu Lal, a native of Udham Singh Nagar.
They had a son before their marriage was annulled in 2006 due to disagreements, according to counsel Vivek Rastogi, who was part of the team representing the petitioner.
Nathu Lal petitioned for maintenance, citing financial restraints and his inability to provide adequate education, parenting, and sustenance for the child. Following this, the family court ordered Gupta, who was earning Rs 27,000 per month at the time, to pay Rs 2,000 in monthly support to her son.
Gupta, on the other hand, said that following her divorce from Nathu Lal, she married another guy, Babu Lal, and had a son from that marriage. She maintained that after Babu Lal died in an accident, she had to care for their son and Babu Lal's parents.
Gupta's lawyer disputed the family court's ruling because Section 125 of the CrPC only compelled fathers to pay support, not mothers. In response to the argument, Nathu Lal's counsel stated that the term "person" in the CrPC refers to both genders and should not be limited to "father."
The court noted that a recent revision to Section 125 of the CrPC emphasises that the term "person" encompasses both male and female entities. "A parent, regardless of gender, who has adequate means but neglects or refuses to provide for their minor child, whether legitimate or not, is liable for child maintenance," the court stated.
Given Gupta's steady job as a government teacher with a salary of roughly Rs 1 lakh, the court affirmed the family court's verdict from 2013, saying there is "no illegality or impropriety in the judgement passed by the family court."
Leave A Comment