ORDER :

Prayer: This Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the case in FCOP No. 242 of 2022 from the file of the Family Court at Vellore and transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court at Poonamallee.

1. The present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the case in FCOP No. 242 of 2022 from the file of the Family Court at Vellore and transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court at Poonamallee.

2. The marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnised on 16.09.2021 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. From and out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent, a male child was born and now aged about 2 years. The minor child is with the custody of the petitioner.

3. The respondent-husband filed FCOP No. 242 of 2022 for restitution of conjugal rights on the file of the Family Court at Vellore.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that she filed divorce petition in HMOP No. 935 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Court at Poonamallee. The petitioner is unemployed and now both the petitioner as well as the 2 year old male child are residing along with parents of the petitioner at Chennai. Thus the petitioner is depending on her parents even for her livelihood as well as her 2 year old male child and she is not in a position to travel all along from Chennai to Vellore to contest the restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent in FCOP No. 242 of 2022, which is pending on the file of the Family Court at Vellore.

5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent-husband is not paying even the Interim Maintenance to safeguard his own child and now the petitioner is depending on her age-old parents even to feed her child. In such circumstances, the Courts are expected to step in and protect the livelihood of the minor child, which is the fundamental right ensured under the Constitution.

6. Whenever, the life of minor child is in question, the Courts are expected to protect the interest of the child and any non-protection in this regard would have larger societal repercussions and the High Court, being the Constitutional Court, is expected to grant Interim Maintenance in such circumstances even in the absence of any formal application by any one of the parties. If the High Court fails to grant Interim Maintenance in such circumstances, where the minor child is to be maintained by an unemployed mother, then the High Court is failing in its duty to protect the life of the minor child under the Constitution of India.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent objected the said contention by stating that the respondent is willing to take care of the minor child and the petitioner is not allowing the respondent to see the child and therefore, he is not in a position to pay the Interim Maintenance.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated that unless the petitioner permits the respondent to visit the child, he will not be in a position to pay the Interim Maintenance. The tenor of the respondent expressed through the learned counsel for the respondent shows the attitude and conduct of the respondent, who is none other than the father of the 2 year old male child. Such an approach of the respondent, at no circumstances, be encouraged by this Court.

9. Parents are duty bound to maintain their minor children. The 2 year old male child has to be taken care of by the father, who is the natural guardian and an earning member. The petitioner-wife is unemployed and therefore, the respondent-father has to maintain the child.

10. For grant of Interim Maintenance to the minor children, no application is required. Even in the absence of any application, the Courts are bound to consider grant of Interim Maintenance in the interest of the minor children and to protect their livelihood, which is the Fundamental Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. Remedy of maintenance is the measure of social justic