Background of the Case

The marriage between Anandaraj and Priya was solemnised on 08.03.2009. Their son, Vignesh, was born on 09.07.2010. Due to marital discord, both parents mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage through H.M.O.P. No. 118/2013, and the divorce decree was passed on 14.02.2014. In the mutual consent divorce:

• Custody of the minor was given exclusively to the father.

• The mother renounced any right to maintenance from her former husband.

• The father undertook full responsibility for the child’s maintenance.

• Both parents subsequently remarried and were living independent lives.

The minor has been residing with his paternal grandparents, with the father employed in the Airport Authority of India, earning around ₹1,00,000 per month. He deposited ₹1,60,000 in the child’s name and maintained a life insurance policy for him.

Family Court’s Findings

The Family Court dismissed the maintenance case primarily on three grounds:

1. Lack of locus standi: The paternal grandfather was not the natural guardian. The natural guardian—the father—was alive and capable of filing such petition.

2. Consent terms of divorce: The father had already undertaken to take care of the child; the mother could not be made liable after mutually dissolving the marriage under agreed terms.

3. Financial capacity: Both father and grandfather had sufficient means, and therefore the petition against the mother lacked bona fides.

Arguments Before the High Court

Petitioner’s arguments:
The grandfather argued that both parents had remarried and lived prosperous lives, showing no concern for the child. He claimed that the father had failed in his ongoing duty, and thus the mother, who is employed in a bank, should also bear financial responsibility. He claimed his pension was insufficient to meet rising expenses.

Respondent mother’s arguments:
She submitted that:

• The petition was an abuse of process, intended to harass her despite her peaceful remarriage.

• The mutual consent divorce clearly absolved her from maintenance liability.

• The father, earning a high salary, is the natural guardian and fully capable of supporting the child.

• The grandfather filed the case without even impleading his own son, which shows mala fide intention.

High Court’s Analysis

The Court held that:

• Under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the father is the natural guardian. The grandfather cannot file a Section 125 petition unless formally appointed as guardian.

• The consent divorce decree has finality; neither party can indirectly nullify the mutually agreed maintenance terms.

• The petition was clearly an attempt by the grandfather to disturb the respondent mother’s settled life, despite her lawful remarriage.

• The Court emphasised the right of women to rebuild life with dignity, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

• Co-parenting after divorce must be based on cooperation, not litigation.

Conclusion

The High Court found no illegality in the Family Court’s order. It dismissed the criminal revision, holding that the petition was a misconceived attempt to reopen settled issues and disturb the mother’s peaceful family life. The father, being the natural and financially capable guardian, remains solely responsible for the child’s maintenance as per the mutual consent divorce decree.