Court clarifies distinction between custody and maintenance rights; procedural error citing wrong section does not invalidate substantive maintenance claim under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
In a significant judgment delivered on October 6, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court affirmed the independent right of minor children to claim maintenance under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), even after the death of their mother who had initially instituted the maintenance proceedings. The court permitted the maternal grandmother, currently caring for the minors, to continue pursuing the pending maintenance claim on their behalf, while emphasizing that the issues of custody and guardianship are distinct from the right to maintenance.
The case arose from a petition filed by Suresh Kumawat challenging an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran, which allowed the maternal grandmother, respondent No.3, to pursue maintenance proceedings under Section 144 BNSS on behalf of the minor children, Yuvika and Kunal, after the demise of their mother Monika. The petitioner contended that as the biological father and natural guardian, he was willing to take custody and maintain the children, and that the trial court had erroneously relied on Section 339 BNSS-a provision pertaining to permission to conduct prosecution-which has no application to maintenance claims.
Justice Sunil Beniwal, presiding over the matter, noted that the right of minor children to claim maintenance under Section 144 BNSS is independent of custody or guardianship issues. He explained that while custody proceedings determine who will care for the minors, maintenance proceedings address the obligation to financially support them. The court held that the pendency of custody proceedings or the petitioner's assertion of natural guardianship does not extinguish the children's right to claim maintenance.
Addressing the procedural objection regarding the invocation of Section 339 BNSS, the court observed that although this section is inapplicable to maintenance claims and relates specifically to prosecutorial permissions, the erroneous reference did not cause any substantial prejudice to the petitioner. Citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1956 SC 116), the court reiterated that procedural irregularities do not invalidate proceedings unless they strike at the root or cause significant prejudice. The court underscored that the substance and effect of the order permitting the maternal grandmother to represent the minors in the maintenance claim must be examined over mere nomenclature.
Further, Justice Beniwal pointed out that Sections 144 and 147 BNSS contemplate practical necessities such as directing maintenance allowances to persons other than the minor themselves, including guardians or caretakers. Thus, the legal framework inherently recognizes the need for representation in maintenance claims involving minors.
The court directed that the trial court decide the maintenance application on merits, uninfluenced by the High Court's observations, and grant the petitioner full opportunity to contest the claim. It also clarified that the order permitting the maternal grandmother to pursue the maintenance claim does not amount to any determination on custody or guardianship, which remains a separate issue before the competent court.
This judgment reinforces the principle that a minor's right to maintenance is a substantive right that survives the death of the parent who initially filed the claim and must be protected by allowing appropriate representation. The decision safeguards the financial interests of minors while delineating the boundaries between custody and maintenance disputes, thereby strengthening child welfare jurisprudence under the BNSS.
Bottom Line:
BNSS - Maintenance of minor children - After death of mother who had instituted proceedings under Section 144 BNSS, pending maintenance claim of minors does not perish - Maternal grandmother, who is presently caring for minors, can be permitted to pursue proceedings on their behalf - Mere erroneous reference to Section 339 BNSS, which relates to permission to conduct prosecution, does not invalidate substantive order in absence of prejudice - Questions of custody/guardianship are distinct from and do not extinguish independent right of minors to claim maintenance.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 144, 147, 339, 528
Suresh Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3000422
