Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a criminal revision application filed by the husband-father challenging the order of the Family Court, Nagpur, which directed payment of maintenance to his minor daughter and wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant, Ramratan Sunwani, had married respondent Maya on 19.4.1980, and the couple had two daughters—Minal and Payal. After marital discord, the wife filed maintenance proceedings. Earlier, in Misc. Cri. Application No. 37 of 1981, maintenance for the eldest daughter Minal was granted while the wife’s own claim was rejected. Subsequently, in 1996, the wife filed two petitions before the Family Court—one for herself and one for the younger daughter Payal. The Family Court by order dated 1.10.2005 awarded maintenance of Rs. 700 per month to Payal and Rs. 1000 per month to the wife. The husband filed the present revision (No. 286 of 2004) challenging the order, primarily on the ground that he was not the biological father of Payal as he had no access to the mother at the relevant period. He also pleaded that he had retired and could not afford the maintenance amount. The High Court noted that the Family Court had specifically framed the issue whether the guardian mother proved that Payal was born to the respondent. In paragraph 27 of the impugned judgment, the Family Court observed that it was undisputed that the couple cohabited after marriage and that Payal was born from that union. The Family Court also referred to the earlier proceedings where maintenance for Minal was granted, confirming the marital relationship and cohabitation. The applicant denied paternity but had not filed any separate proceeding in a competent court to challenge his paternity. The High Court observed that the mere denial of paternity without any adjudication cannot defeat the child’s right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the applicant had not contended that he had taken any steps to disprove paternity through legal proceedings. Regarding the wife’s maintenance, the applicant did not dispute that a divorced wife remains entitled to maintenance until remarriage, though the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 4.5.2010 in Second Appeal No. 280 of 1994. On the question of quantum, the High Court declined to disturb the amount awarded but granted liberty to the applicant to approach the Family Court and bring to its notice any change in circumstances, such as retirement, which could warrant alteration of the maintenance allowance. The applicant was also given liberty to challenge paternity by filing appropriate proceedings in a competent court, if so advised. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the Family Court’s order. It held that the Family Court had correctly appreciated the evidence on paternity, and the applicant’s mere assertion of non-access was insufficient to escape liability. The decision underscores that in maintenance proceedings, a father cannot simply disown paternity; he must seek a formal declaration from a civil or family court to establish his lack of paternity. Until then, the child is entitled to maintenance, given the evidence of cohabitation and birth during wedlock.
Headnote
A) Family Law – Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Paternity of Minor Child – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 – The revision applicant denied paternity on the ground that he had no access to the mother, but the Family Court framed a specific issue and, on evidence of cohabitation and an earlier maintenance order for another child, held that the minor was born to him. Held that in the absence of any proceedings in a competent court to challenge paternity, the father cannot avoid his obligation to maintain the child; mere denial is insufficient. (Paras 5-6) B) Family Law – Maintenance – Effect of Divorce on Wife’s Claim – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 – Although the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, the divorced wife remains entitled to maintenance until her remarriage, which was not disputed. (Para 3) C) Criminal Procedure – Revision – Quantum of Maintenance and Changed Circumstances – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 – The High Court declined to interfere with the quantum of maintenance but granted liberty to the applicant to move the Family Court for alteration based on changed circumstances such as retirement, and also to challenge paternity through appropriate proceedings. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revision applicant can avoid paying maintenance to the minor child by denying paternity without having challenged paternity in any competent court; and whether the quantum of maintenance needs modification due to changed circumstances.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, holding that the Family Court had rightly framed the issue of paternity and answered it affirmatively based on evidence of cohabitation and birth. The applicant had not filed any proceedings to challenge paternity, so his mere denial did not absolve his liability. The quantum of maintenance was not disturbed, but the applicant was given liberty to approach the Family Court to seek alteration due to changed circumstances and also to challenge paternity by filing appropriate proceedings in a competent court.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
- obligation of father to maintain minor child
- paternity denial must be adjudicated by competent court
- divorced wife entitled to maintenance until remarriage
- Family Court can alter maintenance quantum on proof of changed circumstances
