MP High Court: Grandmother Can Seek Child Maintenance Under S.125 CrPC

• The MP High Court ruled that a minor's maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC cannot be dismissed solely because it was filed by a grandmother who is not a formally appointed legal guardian.
• Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal emphasized that the child's right to maintenance takes precedence over procedural technicalities regarding the 'next friend' status.
• The case involved Siddhi Chaurasiya, whose application for interim maintenance against her father, Sailendra Chaurasiya, was initially rejected by a Family Court.
• The High Court cited precedents from other courts, affirming that a person with sufficient interest, like a grandmother in actual care, can represent a minor in such proceedings.
• This decision underscores that Section 125 CrPC is welfare-oriented, aiming to provide social justice and support to vulnerable individuals.

This landmark decision by the MP High Court underscores a critical principle: the fundamental right of a child to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC must not be obstructed by mere procedural technicalities.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently addressed a significant issue concerning child maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, ruling that a minor's claim cannot be dismissed simply because it was filed by a maternal grandmother who had not been formally appointed as a legal guardian. This decision, delivered by Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal of the Jabalpur bench on October 13, 2026, overturned a previous order from the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, dated September 5, 2022.

The case involved Miss Siddhi Chaurasiya, born on September 26, 2015, who sought interim maintenance from her father, Sailendra Chaurasiya. Siddhi's mother, Sapna Chourasiya, passed away on May 19, 2018, when the child was approximately three years old. Following her mother's death, Siddhi began residing with her maternal grandmother. Her counsel informed the court that the parents' relationship had been strained, with the father allegedly deserting his wife and initially refusing to acknowledge Siddhi as his daughter.

An application for interim maintenance pendente lite under Section 125 CrPC was filed on January 24, 2019, with the grandmother acting as the 'next friend' due to her inability to adequately maintain the child. However, the Family Court rejected this plea, reasoning that the grandmother lacked the legal standing to file such proceedings without being a duly appointed legal guardian or having sought legal custody. This procedural hurdle formed the crux of the initial dismissal, which the MP High Court subsequently reviewed.

In its review, the MP High Court emphasized that the Family Court had overlooked a crucial aspect: the proceedings were intended to enforce the minor's rights, not those of the 'next friend.' Justice Bansal clarified that a minor's Section 125 CrPC minor maintenance claim should not be thwarted by procedural technicalities regarding the applicant's formal guardianship status. The court noted that there was no dispute regarding Siddhi's legitimacy as the respondent's daughter, nor was her residence with the grandmother after her mother's passing denied by the father.

Advocate Avinash Dubey, representing the petitioner, argued that the child was entitled to interim maintenance, even without strict adherence to Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) concerning guardian appointments, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Nagaiah v. Chowdamma. Conversely, Advocate Sanjay Jharia, representing the father, defended the Family Court's order, asserting that no application under Order XXXII Rule 4 CPC had been made for a guardian's appointment. The MP High Court, however, sided with the principle that the child's welfare and right to support must prevail over such procedural requirements.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court maintenance ruling drew upon coordinate Bench rulings from the Madras, Kerala, and Punjab and Haryana High Courts. These precedents affirm that an individual with a sufficient interest in a minor can seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC without strict compliance with formal guardianship rules. The court extensively referenced the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in Kamaljit Singh v. Gurkirat Kaur, which characterized Section 125 proceedings as 'summary in character and welfare-oriented in purpose.' This ruling established that a grandmother in actual care and custody of a child possesses a 'sufficient and legitimate representative capacity' to pursue maintenance, and that 'an irregularity in the channel through which the child’s claim is brought cannot be permitted to defeat the claim itself at the threshold.'

Justice Bansal also distinguished an unreported Delhi High Court decision from April 4, 2022, which the Family Court had relied upon, finding it inapplicable as it did not pertain to a plea filed on behalf of a minor by a person with sufficient interest. This landmark decision by the MP High Court underscores a critical principle: the fundamental right of a child to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC must not be obstructed by mere procedural technicalities. The court stressed that Section 125 must be interpreted to advance social justice and extend benefits to vulnerable individuals, ensuring that procedural nuances do not prevent a child from receiving essential support.

Lawyers representing minors seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC should note that courts, particularly the MP High Court, will prioritize the child's welfare and right to support over strict procedural requirements for legal guardianship. This ruling provides a strong precedent to argue against dismissals based on the applicant's lack of formal guardianship, emphasizing that a person with sufficient interest (like a grandmother) can act as a 'next friend'.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet