The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a Family Court order rejecting a minor girl’s interim maintenance application because her maternal grandmother was not formally appointed as her legal guardian. Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal held that the child’s right to maintenance should not be defeated by technical objections concerning representation.
In Miss Siddhi Chaurasiya v. Sailendra Chaurasiya, the Court ruled on October 13, 2026, that a maintenance claim filed on behalf of a minor should not be rejected merely because the person representing the child lacks formal legal guardianship. The Court emphasised the welfare-oriented purpose of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which provides for maintenance to eligible dependants.
The petitioner was born on September 26, 2015. Following her mother’s death on May 19, 2018, she began living with her maternal grandmother. In January 2019, the grandmother filed a maintenance application on the child’s behalf, along with a request for interim maintenance.
The Family Court, Jabalpur, rejected the interim maintenance application on September 5, 2022, reasoning that the grandmother had not been formally appointed as the girl’s legal guardian. The child challenged that order before the High Court.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Avinash Dubey argued that the father had admitted the girl was his daughter and that she had been living with her maternal grandmother since 2018, following her mother’s death. He submitted that she was entitled to seek interim maintenance through her grandmother without first following the procedure under Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). In support of his submissions, he relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nagaiah v. Chowdamma.
Advocate Sanjay Jharia, appearing for the father, defended the Family Court’s order. He argued that no application had been filed under Order XXXII Rule 4 CPC for the appointment of a legal guardian and maintained that the Family Court had rightly rejected the interim maintenance application on that ground.
Justice Bansal considered the child’s living arrangements and noted that her father had not disputed that she was residing with her maternal grandmother. The Court also examined decisions of other High Courts supporting the ability of a person with sufficient interest in a minor to seek maintenance on the child’s behalf.
The Court observed:
“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.”
Applying these principles, the Court found that the Family Court had failed to consider the settled legal position while rejecting the interim maintenance application.
Allowing the criminal revision, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the interim maintenance application in accordance with law.
The Court directed both parties to appear before the concerned Family Court on November 16, 2026.
Case Title: Miss Siddhi Chaurasiya v. Sailendra Chaurasiya
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 4086 of 2022
