The natural guardian has exclusive rights to maintain a petition for a minor's maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., barring third-party claims unless legally authorized.

ORDER

Prologue:

“Marriage today is no longer a sacrament, but an art of conciliation and adjustment.”

2. This case epitomizes the tragic consequence of how modern domestic complexities can distort familial bonds. Here, a minor child has been thrust into the vortex of litigation, not to protect his welfare, but as an instrument to vent the latent animosity of an embittered father-in-law against his divorced and peacefully remarried daughter-in- law. What ought to have been a matter of parental care has been converted into a tool of vengeance, where the estranged husband, instead of acting with responsibility, has chosen to act through his father, making his own minor son a mere pawn in their continuing matrimonial discord.

3. This Court cannot remain oblivious to the persistent vulnerabilities faced by women, who, even after lawfully resolving their marital disputes and rebuilding their lives with dignity, are often dragged back into the shadows of hostility under one guise or another. The Court, therefore, stands vigilant to uphold the dignity, autonomy, and peace of womanhood, which are integral to the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner, a minor child represented by his paternal grandfather, challenging the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Karur, in M.C. No.62 of 2023, whereby the maintenance petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent–mother came to be dismissed.

Background of the Case:

5. The revision petitioner, Minor Vignesh, aged about 5 years, was born to one Anandaraj and the respondent Priya, D/o.Shakthivel, whose marriage was solemnized on 08.03.2009. Out of the said wedlock, the minor petitioner was born on 09.07.2010. Differences arose between the spouses, and after attempts at reconciliation failed, both of them filed H.M.O.P. No.118 of 2013 before the Subordinate Judge, Theni, seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. 6. By order dated 14.02.2014, the said marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, wherein it was specifically recorded that the custody of the minor child would vest with the father, Anandaraj, and that the respondent–mother would not claim any maintenance from her former husband in future. Correspondingly, the father undertook to maintain the child and not to seek any contribution or financial support from the respondent.

7. Pursuant to the said mutual agreement, both the biological parents remarried and have since been living separate and independent lives. The minor petitioner has been living under the care of his paternal grandparents at Karur. The father of the minor, who is employed with the Airport Authority of India, has been paying a monthly sum towards the maintenance of the child, apart from depositing Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Sixty Thousand only) in the child’s name and maintaining a life insurance policy for the child.

Findings of the Family Court:

8. The learned Family Court, Karur, dismissed the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., holding that the paternal grandfather, not being the natural guardian, had no locus standi to maintain a maintenance petition on behalf of the minor in the absence of appointment as guardian by a competent Court. The natural guardian of the minor, being the father, was alive and financially capable. In view of the mutual consent divorce decree, wherein the father had undertaken to maintain the child, the mother could no