Married sister can claim support for minor brother from father under Section 125

The Madras High Court, in its adjudication, has elucidated that there exists no legal impediment precluding a sister from instituting a maintenance petition on behalf of her minor brother under the purview of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Contrary to the trial court’s determination, wherein it opined that the daughter’s entitlement to maintenance was governed by Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 until marriage, and further acknowledged the brother’s entitlement to maintenance from the initiation of the case until attaining majority, the High Court underscored that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. does not proscribe the initiation of maintenance petitions on behalf of minor children. Rather, it imposes an imperative to furnish maintenance to minors.

The dismissal of the maintenance petition filed by the married sister on behalf of her minor brother, predicated on the asserted lack of locus standi, was deemed legally erroneous by the High Court. The absence of a legal impediment for a sister to instigate a maintenance petition necessitates a construction of Section 125 that propels the objective of providing sustenance for the minor in question.

A Single Bench of Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan observed, “Section 125 of Cr.P.C., does not prohibit any person from filing maintenance petition on behalf of the minor children. It creates an obligation to pay maintenance to the minor. Without any legislative prohibition to file the maintenance claim on behalf of the minor brother by the married sister who has taken care of the said minor brother, the dismissal of the maintenance petition on the ground of the locos standi by the learned trial Judge is not legally correct.”
Advocate A.K.Azhagarsami represented the revision petitioner.The Court declined to accept the father’s argument as the trial court had exercised the suo motu power in the interest and welfare of the minor children by exercising parens partiae jurisdiction and held, “This Court finds no reason to differ with the said reasoning of the learned revision Judge.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition.