Miss Siddhi Chaurasiya vs Sailendra Chaurasiya

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82144


1 CRR No.4086/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL

th
ON THE 13 OF OCTOBER, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4086 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010562122022
MISS SIDDHI CHAURASIYA
Versus
SAILENDRA CHAURASIYA
__________________________________________________________________
Appearance:

Shri Avinash Dubey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Jharia – Advocate for the respondent.
____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER
This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner/minor daughter
challenging the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by First Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Jabalpur in MJCR No.74/2019, whereby the Family Court has, in the
main application/proceeding under Section 125 of the CrPC, dismissed an application
for interim maintenance pendente lite, filed by the petitioner/minor daughter through
her next friend (maternal grandmother), on the premise that she is not legal guardian
of the petitioner.
2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was born on
26.09.2015 and due to illness, her mother (Smt. Sapna Chourasiya) had died on
19.05.2018 leaving behind her the petitioner, aged about 3 years only. He submits that
due to strained relations between the husband and wife, the respondent/father deserted
his wife (i.e. mother of the petitioner), hence she was living separately. He submits that
the respondent was not accepting the petitioner as his daughter and alleging that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 15-10-2026
10:51:03

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82144


2 CRR No.4086/2022

petitioner was not born out of wedlock of the respondent and his wife. He submits that
since maternal grandmother was not in a position to maintain the petitioner properly,
therefore, an application under Section 125 of the CrPC was filed by the petitioner on
24.01.2019 through her next friend/maternal grandmother (Nani) and at the same time
another application for awarding interim maintenance pendente lite was also filed,
which has been dismissed by the impugned order, on the premise that since the
maternal grandmother is not a legal guardian of the petitioner duly appointed under the
law, therefore, unless the maternal grandmother files appropriate application for taking
legal custody of the petitioner, she has no right to file any proceeding on behalf of the
petitioner and as such no interim maintenance pendente lite can be granted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/minor daughter submits that since the
respondent has admitted the petitioner to be his daughter and that the petitioner is
continuously living/residing with her maternal grandmother (Nani) since 19.05.2018
i.e. after death of her mother, therefore, even without following any procedure
prescribed under Order XXXII of the CPC, she is entitled to interim maintenance. In
support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagaiah vs. Chowdamma (Dead) by
LRs., AIR 2018 SC 459 ( para 9 & 16). With these submissions he prays for setting
aside the impugned order and for allowing the instant criminal revision.
4. In turn learned counsel for the respondent/father supports the impugned order
and prays for dismissal of the criminal revision. He submits that since the petitioner
has not moved any application under Order XXXII Rule 4 of the CPC for appointment
of legal guardian, therefore, the Family Court has not committed any illegality in
passing the impugned order and in dismissing the application under Section 125 of the
CrPC.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 15-10-2026
10:51:03

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82144


3 CRR No.4086/2022

6. As has been observed hereinabove, there is no dispute to the fact that the
petitioner is legitimate daughter of the respondent. In paragraph 5 of the application
under Section 125 of the CrPC, the petitioner has clearly mentioned that after death of
her mother i.e. after 19.05.2018, she is in the care and custody of her maternal
grandmother and perusal of the reply to the application shows that this fact has not
been denied by the respondent. As such it is clear that the petitioner is daughter of the
respondent and is living with her maternal grandmother (Nani).
7. In the case of Nagaiah vs. Chowdamma (Dead) by LRs., AIR 2018 SC 459 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :
“9.
7. Agreement or compromise by next friend or guardian for the suit .—(1) No next friend or guardian for the suit shall,
without the leave of the court, expressly recorded in the proceedings, enter into any agreement or compromise on behalf of
a minor with reference to the suit in which he acts as next friend or guardian.
(2) Where an application is made to the court for leave to enter into an agreement or compromise or for withdrawal of a suit
in pursuance of a compromise or for taking any other similar action on behalf of a minor or other person under disability, the
affidavit in support of the application shall set out the manner in which the proposed compromise, agreement or other action
is likely to effect the interests of the minor or other person under the disability and the reason why such compromise,
agreement or other action is expected to be for the benefit of the minor or other person under disability, where in such a case
the minor or the other person under disability is represented by counsel or pleader, the said counsel or pleader shall also file
into court along with the application a certificate to the effect that the agreement or compromise or action proposed is in his
opinion for the benefit of the minor or other person under disability. If the court grants leave under sub-rule (1) of this Rule,
the decree or order of the court shall expressly recite the grant of the leave sought from the court in respect of the compromise,
agreement or other action as aforesaid after consideration of the affidavit and the certificate mentioned above and shall also
set out either in the body of the decree itself or in a schedule annexed thereto the terms of the compromise or agreement or
the particulars of other action.
(3) Any such agreement or compromise entered into without the leave of the court so recorded shall be voidable against all
parties other than the minor.
…… ……. ….…. ……… ……… ...………
16. There is no hurdle for a natural guardian or duly constituted guardian as defined under the Hindu Guardianship Act to
represent minor plaintiff or defendant in a law suit. But such guardian should not have adverse interest against minor. If the
natural guardian or the duly constituted guardian has adverse interest against the minor in the law suit, then a next
friend or guardian ad litem, as the case may be, would represent the minor in the civil litigation. ”
8. Further three coordinate Benches of the High Court of Madras, Kerala and
Punjab and Haryana have taken the view that, a person who has sufficient interest in
the minor, can move an application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the
CrPC and procedure provided under Order XXXII of the CPC or the strict rule of the
guardianship is not required to be complied with necessarily.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 15-10-2026
10:51:03

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82144


4 CRR No.4086/2022

8.1 In the case of R. Ochappan vs. Keerthana, 2024 Live Law (Mad) 36 , a
coordinate Bench of Madras High Court has held as under :-
“5.7 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.
When there is no legal impediment to file the maintenance petition by the sister of the minor brother, the learned trial Judge
ought to have picked out the interpretation of the provision of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which advances the cause. The same
was emphasised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:
Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal reported in (1978) 4 SCC 70:
9 .… The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and
children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in
picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause — the cause of the derelicts.”
8.2 In the case of Subhadra Bhargavan vs. Dhanapalan S, 2025 Supreme (Online)
(KER) 10845 , a coordinate Bench of Kerala High Court has held as under :-
nd
“5. The paternity of the 2 petitioner is not in dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner in RPFC No. 61/2024 submitted
that the maintenance case filed by the respondents before the Family Court is not maintainable for two reasons : (i) When
nd st nd
the mother of the 2 petitioner is alive, the 1 petitioner cannot maintain a petition on behalf of the minor, the 2
nd
petitioner . (ii) The entire dispute between the respondent and the mother of the 2 petitioner was settled and at the time of
nd
the settlement, he had given Rs.5,00,000/- in lieu of maintenance to the 2 petitioner as the full and final settlement and
nd
based on the said settlement, the Lok Adalat passed an award and as such, the 2 petitioner cannot claim maintenance.
st nd
6. So far as the first contention is concerned, it is not in dispute that the 1 petitioner is the grandmother of the 2
nd
petitioner. It is also not much in dispute that at the time of filing the M.C., the 2 petitioner was under the care and
st nd
custody of the 1 petitioner. The 2 petitioner, being minor, cannot directly file a petition for maintenance. It is settled
that a person who has sufficient interest in the minor can move an application seeking maintenance under Section
st
125 of Cr.P.C. [Ramakrishnan v. Kali 1987 KHC 618]. Therefore, the contention that the 1 petitioner has no locus
nd
standi to file a petition for maintenance on behalf of the 2 petitioner cannot be accepted.”
8.3 In the case of Kamaljit Singh vs. Gurkirat Kaur, 2026 Live Law (PH) 144 =
CRR(F)-192 of 2026 (O&M) dtd. 28.04.2026 , a coordinate Bench of Punjab and
Haryana High Court has held as under :-
“12. The petitioner seeks to import the strict and formal notions of guardianship into proceedings under Section 125
Cr.P.C. that may arise in other branches of law. Such an approach, however, is fundamentally erroneous. Proceedings
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in character and welfare-oriented in purpose. They are not designed to become
entangled in the technicalities of title to guardianship unless such questions are inescapably central. The provision is directed
to the prevention of neglect and to secure basic maintenance for dependents. It is concerned with the practical reality of who
is maintaining the child, caring for her, meeting her daily needs, and whether the person legally bound to provide support is
doing so.
…. ….. ….. ….. ….. …. ….
15. Where the maternal grandmother is in actual care and custody of the minor child, and is discharging the
responsibilities ordinarily associated with parental care, she acquires, for the purposes of such proceedings, a
sufficient and legitimate representative capacity to seek enforcement of the child's right to maintenance . The claim
continues to be that of the child. The grandmother merely becomes the medium through which the child's legal entitlement
is articulated. If the law were to deny her that capacity, the consequence would not be to punish the grandmother; it would
be to prejudice the child. Such an interpretation would run directly contrary to the spirit and object of the provision.
16. The objection that the mother is alive and therefore the grandmother is excluded, also does not carry the matter
any further. The existence of the mother does not, by itself, nullify the practical reality that the grandmother may
have been the de facto caregive r. The law cannot operate on abstractions alone. It must take account of actual custody, care
and expenditure. There may be cases where the mother is living separately, is unable for a period to effectively care for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 15-10-2026
10:51:03

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82144


5 CRR No.4086/2022

child, or where the child is in fact being raised by the grandmother. In such situations, to insist that the grandmother must
first establish a formal legal transfer of guardianship before seeking maintenance would be to impose a burden which the
welfare provision never contemplated.
17. It is true that, ordinarily, the mother being the natural guardian and parent would be the appropriate person to
represent the child. It is equally true that proceedings may, where necessary, be regularised in an appropriate manner
so that representation is procedurally clear. But an irregularity in the channel through which the child's claim is
brought cannot be permitted to defeat the claim itself at the threshold. A distinction must always be maintained
between an irregularity in representation and absence of entitlement. Here, the entitlement belongs to a child &
remains unimpaired. This Court also finds no merit in the submission that because matrimonial proceedings between the
parents ended in compromise, the claim of the minor must be treated as close. A child's claim to maintenance is not a
derivative claim dependent wholly on the mother's status. It is a direct statutory claim. Neither parent can contract out of the
child's welfare. No compromise can override the continuing duty of a father to maintain his minor child. InGanesh v. Sudhir
Kumar Shrivastava (2020) 20 SCC 787 the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that no compromise between the parties can
override the child's independent right to claim maintenance. The welfare of the child cannot be subordinate to contractual
agreement between the parties. It reads as under :
"Before we part with, we must also express our reservation insofar as Para 6 is concerned, which was
incorporated in the order on 8-11-2017 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad. It was certainly open
to the wife to give up any claim so far as maintenance or permanent alimony or stridhan is concerned but she
could not have given up the rights which vest in the daughter insofar as maintenance and other issues are
concerned.”

9. It is also pertinent to observe that while passing the impugned order dismissing
the interim maintenance pendente lite , the Family Court has taken into consideration
an unreported decision of Delhi High Court given on 04.04.2022 in CM APPL.
16706/2022 . Upon perusal of the same, it is clear that it has not dealt with the aforesaid
requirement of law, i.e. filing of the application under Section 125 of the CrPC on
behalf of a minor by a person having sufficient interest in the minor. So, the said
decision of Delhi High Court is not applicable at all, to the present case.
10. The provision under Section 125 of the CrPC is to be interpreted in a manner so
as to advance the social justice and to extend the benefit to the helpless persons. The
Family Court failed to take note of the fact that it is the minor whose rights are required
to be enforced and not the next friend i.e. maternal grandmother. The Family Court is
required to advance the benefit of provision to the minor daughter irrespective of
person through whom she claims his entitlement to maintenance.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 15-10-2026
10:51:03

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82144


6 CRR No.4086/2022

11. In view of aforesaid discussion and in view of aforesaid factual scenario, in my
considered opinion, the Family Court has committed an illegality in dismissing the
application for interim maintenance pendente lite, that too without taking care of the
aforesaid settled legal position.
12. Resultantly, instant criminal revision succeeds and is allowed and by setting
aside the impugned order dated 05.09.2022, matter is remanded to the concerned
Family Court for deciding the application for interim maintenance afresh, in
accordance with law and after taking into consideration the aforesaid settled legal
position.
13. Parties are directed to remain present before the concerned Family Court on
16.11.2026. It is also made clear that if any of the parties does not appear, the Court
shall issue fresh notice/summons with a view to secure their presence before the Court.
14. With the aforesaid, the instant criminal revision is partly allowed and disposed
of.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE


ss

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 15-10-2026
10:51:03