Delhi High Court Upholds Child's Right to Maintenance Despite Matrimonial Settlement
Family Court Must Consider Child's Independent Maintenance Rights, Petitioner Cannot Quash Maintenance Petition for Wife and Child
In a pivotal judgment dated September 23, 2025, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Ms. Neena Bansal Krishna, J., has affirmed the entitlement of a child to maintenance, irrespective of matrimonial settlements between parents. The case, Umar Haris v. Yusra Meraj, revolved around a petition filed by Umar Haris seeking to quash a maintenance order pending before the Family Court in New Delhi. The petitioner argued that a comprehensive settlement agreement dated November 25, 2021, between him and his ex-wife Yusra Meraj, covered all claims of maintenance, including those for their minor son.
The core legal issue addressed by the High Court was whether the maintenance petition filed by Yusra Meraj, on behalf of herself and her son, was maintainable despite the earlier settlement. The court underscored the importance of the child’s independent rights, asserting that matrimonial settlements cannot compromise the child's entitlements. The judgment emphasized that maintenance claims under Section 125 CrPC for a divorced wife cannot be denied solely based on mutual consent of separation.
Referring to precedents, the court noted the Supreme Court's stance that a mother cannot relinquish the rights of a child for maintenance during a matrimonial settlement. Such rights remain vested independently with the child and must be adjudicated by the Family Court based on the prevailing circumstances.
The petitioner had argued that there was no material change in financial circumstances post the settlement, which included a payment of Rs. 33 lakhs to the respondent. However, the High Court noted that the maintenance petition had been pending for two years, and interim maintenance for the child's education was already being provided by the petitioner. This compliance indicated that maintenance issues were still relevant and required judicial consideration.
The judgment also clarified that the Family Court must first determine whether the husband had neglected or refused to provide maintenance and assess the wife's ability to maintain herself before awarding interim maintenance. The High Court emphasized that the maintenance petition’s validity, particularly in regard to the child, must be deliberated upon, and the petitioner is allowed to present arguments regarding interim maintenance before the Family Court.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled against quashing the maintenance petition, highlighting the necessity for a thorough evaluation of the child’s rights and the wife's entitlement to maintenance. The petitioner was advised to address these issues before the Family Court, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the independent maintenance rights of children amidst matrimonial disputes.
Bottom Line:
Maintenance Petition cannot be outrightly quashed when it includes maintenance for a child, as the child's independent rights for maintenance cannot be compromised in matrimonial settlements - Maintenance rights of a divorced wife under Section 125 CrPC cannot be denied solely based on mutual consent of separation.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528, Section 125 CrPC
Umar Haris v. Yusra Meraj, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2786345
