The ruling was passed by a single bench headed by the Chief Justice, which rejected the petitioner’s plea seeking exemption from paying maintenance to a minor child born during his marriage but alleged to be not biologically his.
According to case records, the petitioner, a resident of Bemetara district, was married on April 22, 2016, and the customary gauna ceremony took place on May 18, 2016, after which the wife began living at the matrimonial home. However, on October 22, 2016, barely five months after the ceremony, the woman gave birth to a child.
The husband claimed that no physical relationship existed between them before the gauna and alleged that the child was conceived prior to the marriage through another person. Citing this, he severed ties with his wife and later approached the family court seeking divorce.
The family court accepted the husband’s contention that the woman was pregnant before marriage and held it to be an act of cruelty, granting a decree of divorce in his favour. However, on the wife’s application for maintenance, the court directed the husband to provide financial support to both the woman and the child.
Subsequently, the husband filed an application under Section 127 of the CrPC seeking cancellation of maintenance. While the family court discontinued maintenance for the wife following the divorce, it ordered the husband to continue paying Rs 1,000 per month towards the child’s upkeep.
Challenging this order, the man moved the High Court, arguing that he could not be compelled to support a child who was not biologically his. The High Court rejected the argument, holding that Section 125 CrPC is a welfare provision intended to protect children from neglect and vagrancy.
The court observed that even if a child falls under the category of an illegitimate offspring, the legal responsibility of maintenance remains. “The purpose of the provision is to ensure that children are not left helpless or forced to wander for survival,” the court noted.
Legal experts say the judgment reinforces the protective scope of maintenance laws and underscores the judiciary’s focus on child welfare over marital disputes. The ruling is expected to have wider implications in similar maintenance cases across the state.
