The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently held that a minor child's right to claim maintenance is inherently included within the mother's maintenance petition, even if the child is not explicitly named as a party in the proceedings.

Justice Sumeet Goel emphasized that interpreting Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to require the formal inclusion of the minor child as a party would contradict the very purpose and intent of the provision, which allows a wife to seek maintenance on behalf of the child without such formalities.

“The very existence and sustenance of the minor child, living in the custody of the wife, being inherently dependent upon the wife’s financial capability to maintain herself, cannot be construed extrinsically as such capability of the wife. It would be wholly imprudent to conclude that the wife, though not capable of maintaining herself, and as such claiming maintenance from her husband, is able to maintain the minor child,” the Court said.

The Court made these observations while addressing a woman’s plea for an increase in the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The couple, who married in 2016, had a child, and after the wife sought maintenance, the Family Court directed the husband to pay ₹10,000 to the wife and ₹5,000 to the minor child.

When the wife petitioned the High Court for an enhancement of maintenance, the husband did not respond. After reviewing the case and hearing the wife's counsel, the Court noted that the Family Court had awarded maintenance to the child, despite the child not being formally impleaded as a claimant.

The High Court upheld the Family Court's decision, emphasizing that a mother can adequately demonstrate a father's neglect of their child.

“The said action of the learned Family Court, being in furtherance of the benevolent objectives of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, cannot be impugned on legal grounds,” it reasoned.

Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the Court emphasized that it should be assessed by considering not only the husband's income but also any additional financial benefits, allowances, or advantages he may receive through his employment. These factors must be taken into account to ensure a fair determination of the maintenance amount.

“It is imperative to note that the deductions reflected in respondent’s salary, which would constitute deferred income that will accrue to him at a future date, cannot be excluded from the computation of his financial capacity while determining the petitioner’s and the minor child’s entitlement to maintenance. Such deductions, being part of the respondent’s overall earnings, must be considered in order to fairly ascertain the financial resources at his disposal. To exclude such deductions would be to unjustifiably diminish the standard of living to which the petitioner and the minor child are entitled, as they are entitled to enjoy a lifestyle commensurate with that of the respondents,” the Court said.

In this case, the woman's husband served as a Sub-Inspector with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The Court noted that he receives various additional emoluments, allowances, and non-monetary benefits due to his official position. It stated that these perks should be included in the overall evaluation of the maintenance required.

After considering the husband's net salary, the Court increased the maintenance amount from ₹10,000 to ₹15,000 per month for the wife and from ₹5,000 to ₹10,000 per month for the child. Advocate Anil Kumar Ranolia represented the petitioner in this matter.