In its adjudication, the Madras High Court explicated that there exists no legal impediment precluding a sister from initiating a maintenance petition on behalf of her minor brother within the ambit of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In contrast to the trial court’s determination, which opined that the daughter’s entitlement to maintenance was governed by Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, until marriage, and additionally recognized the brother’s entitlement to maintenance from the commencement of the case until attaining majority, the High Court underscored that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. does not proscribe the institution of maintenance petitions on behalf of minor children. Rather, it imposes a mandate to provide maintenance to minors.
The High Court deemed the dismissal of the maintenance petition filed by the married sister on behalf of her minor brother, grounded on the asserted lack of locus standi, as legally erroneous. The absence of a legal impediment for a sister to institute a maintenance petition necessitates a construction of Section 125 that advances the objective of furnishing sustenance for the minor in question.
A Single Bench of Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan observed, “Section 125 of Cr.P.C., does not prohibit any person from filing maintenance petition on behalf of the minor children. It creates an obligation to pay maintenance to the minor. Without any legislative prohibition to file the maintenance claim on behalf of the minor brother by the married sister who has taken care of the said minor brother, the dismissal of the maintenance petition on the ground of the locos standi by the learned trial Judge is not legally correct.”
Advocate A.K.Azhagarsami represented the revision petitioner.The Court declined to accept the father’s argument as the trial court had exercised the suo motu power in the interest and welfare of the minor children by exercising parens partiae jurisdiction and held, “This Court finds no reason to differ with the said reasoning of the learned revision Judge.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition.
