The Rajasthan High Court has declined to interfere with an order permitting a maternal grandmother to continue pending maintenance proceedings on behalf of two minor children following their mother’s death. Justice Sunil Beniwal held that the children’s right to seek maintenance is separate from the question of their custody or guardianship.
Background
The dispute arose after a woman initiated maintenance proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking financial support for herself and her family circumstances. Following her death on February 9, 2026, her mother, the maternal grandmother of the two minor children, approached the trial court for permission to continue the maintenance proceedings on behalf of the children.
On March 16, 2026, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran, allowed the application. The children’s father challenged the order before the Rajasthan High Court, arguing that he was willing to take custody of the children and provide for their needs. He also questioned the trial court’s reliance on Section 339 of the BNSS, which concerns permission to conduct a prosecution.
The High Court distinguished between proceedings concerning custody and those seeking maintenance. It noted that the children were residing with their maternal grandmother while separate custody proceedings remained pending before the competent court.
The court observed,
“The pendency of such proceedings, however, cannot affect the independent right of the minor children to claim maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS.”
Justice Beniwal acknowledged that Section 339 BNSS does not constitute the substantive provision governing maintenance claims. However, the court held that an incorrect reference to a procedural provision would not, by itself, justify terminating the children’s pending claim.
The judgment further clarified that allowing the grandmother to represent the children did not decide their permanent custody or establish her status as their permanent guardian. The father would retain the opportunity to contest the maintenance claim on legally permissible grounds, including his financial means, the children’s needs and the circumstances in which they were living.
Emphasising the distinction between a procedural error and its actual consequences, the court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
The Rajasthan High Court disposed of the petition, declining to interfere with the order permitting the grandmother to pursue the minor children’s maintenance claim. It treated the reference to Section 339 BNSS as erroneous but insufficient to invalidate the direction allowing the proceedings to continue.
The court directed the trial court to decide the maintenance application independently, without being influenced by observations in the High Court’s order, and to provide the father a full opportunity to contest the claim in accordance with law.
