Mother can seek maintenance for child without making him a party: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled that the right of a minor child to claim maintenance remains subsumed within the mother’s petition for maintenance, even if the child has not formally been named as  a party to the proceedings.

Justice Sumeet Goel opined that it would be contrary to the very spirit and purpose of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to interpret that the wife, without formally impleading the minor child with her as party to the petition, cannot claim maintenance on behalf of the minor.

“The very existence and sustenance of the minor child, living in the custody of the wife, being inherently dependent upon the wife’s financial capability to maintain herself, cannot be construed extrinsically as such capability of the wife. It would be wholly imprudent to conclude that the wife, though not capable of maintaining herself, and as such claiming maintenance from her husband, is able to maintain the minor child,” the Court said. 

The observations were made by the Court while dealing with a woman’s plea seeking enhancement of maintenance granted by the Family Court. 

The couple married in 2016 and a child was born. After the wife moved the family court for maintenance from husband, he was ordered to pay ₹10,000 to her and ₹5,000 to the minor child.

Before High Court, the husband did not respond her petition seeking enhancement of maintenance. 

Having gone through the record and heard the wife's counsel, the Court noted that family court had granted maintenance in favour of the minor child without he having been impleaded as a claimant.

The High Court confirmed the decision of family court, observing that a mother can sufficiently prove neglect of a child by his father.

“The said action of the learned Family Court, being in furtherance of the benevolent objectives of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, cannot be impugned on legal grounds,” it reasoned.

On the quantum of maintenance, the Court observed that it must be determined after taking into account not only the husband’s income but also any other pecuniary advantages, benefits or allowances that he may be entitled to by virtue of his employment. 

“It is imperative to note that the deductions reflected in respondent’s salary, which would constitute deferred income that will accrue to him at a future date, cannot be excluded from the computation of his financial capacity while determining the petitioner’s and the minor child’s entitlement to maintenance. Such deductions, being part of the respondent’s overall earnings, must be considered in order to fairly ascertain the financial resources at his disposal. To exclude such deductions would be to unjustifiably diminish the standard of living to which the petitioner and the minor child are entitled, as they are entitled to enjoy a lifestyle commensurate with that of the respondents,” the Court said.

In the present case, the woman’s husband was a Sub-Inspector with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).

Thus, the Court said he avails several additional emoluments, allowances, and non-monetary benefits by virtue of his official position. 

These perks being part of his employment should be factored into the overall assessment of the maintenance required, it added.

Considering the net salary of the husband, the Court enhanced the maintenance from ₹10,000 to ₹15,000 per month in favour of the wife and for the child from ₹5,000 to ₹10,000 per month.

Advocate Anil Kumar Ranolia represented the petitioner.