The Pitfall of Section 125 CrPC: A Lesson in Careful Analysis
family clat_pg beginner trick_questionMost of us have studied Section 125 CrPC, which provides for maintenance to divorced wives, estranged wives or unmarried mothers. It's a straightforward provision, na? But here's the twist - a child is not entitled to maintenance under this provision. A straightforward question would be: What if the child is being abandoned by the father, who has sufficient means? Will he be granted maintenance under Section 125 CrPC? Think you know the answer? Think again. The courts have held that the mother has a duty to maintain her child under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and thus the child is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. This is where most students trip up - we assume that the mother's ability to maintain the child is irrelevant.
I respectfully disagree, yeh article seems to be biased against Section 125 CrPC. The provision is designed to protect the maintenance rights of helpless women and children. Its pitfalls are actually a result of misapplication and lack of awareness about the law, not the law itself. A more in-depth analysis of the cases where the section was misused would have provided a more balanced view, na? It's time to focus on education and awareness rather than criticizing the law.