In a scathing indictment of how marital discord can weaponize innocent children, the Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench has issued a powerful verdict safeguarding the dignity and autonomy of divorced women. Justice L. Victoria Gowri, in a single-judge bench, dismissed a criminal revision petition that sought to drag a remarried mother back into litigation over her child’s maintenance, labeling it a “tool of vengeance” by an embittered father-in-law. The court emphasized that post-divorce co-parenting must be rooted in cooperation, not confrontation, and sternly cautioned in-laws against using legal provisions to harass women who have rebuilt their lives with honor. This ruling, pronounced on November 13, 2025, after being reserved on August 29, 2025, underscores the vulnerabilities women face even after lawful separation, invoking Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to protect their right to life, dignity, and privacy.
The case, CRL RC (MD) No. 1148 of 2024, arose from a desperate attempt by the paternal grandfather of a five-year-old boy, Minor Vignesh, to challenge a Family Court order in Karur dated December 21, 2023. That order had dismissed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the CrPC filed against the child’s mother, Priya, on the grounds that the grandfather lacked locus standi since the father – the natural guardian – was alive, employed, and financially capable. Justice Gowri’s judgment not only upheld the Family Court’s decision but transformed it into a broader manifesto against judicial harassment, declaring that “this case epitomizes the tragic consequence of how modern domestic complexities can distort familial bonds. Here, a minor child has been thrust into the vortex of litigation, not to protect his welfare, but as an instrument to vent the latent animosity of an embittered father-in-law against his divorced and peacefully remarried daughter-in-law.”
The backstory traces back to a marriage solemnized on March 8, 2009, between Anandaraj and Priya, daughter of Shakthivel, which produced Vignesh on July 9, 2010. Irreconcilable differences led to a mutual consent divorce petition, H.M.O.P. No. 118 of 2013, filed before the Subordinate Judge in Theni. On February 14, 2014, the marriage was dissolved with explicit terms: custody vested with the father, Anandaraj; the mother waived any future maintenance claims from her ex-husband; and the father committed to solely maintaining the child without seeking contributions from Priya. Post-divorce, both parents remarried and carved out independent lives. Anandaraj, employed with the Airport Authority of India, has been contributing monthly to the child’s upkeep, deposited Rs. 1.6 lakh in Vignesh’s name, and maintains a life insurance policy for him. The boy resides with his paternal grandparents in Karur.
The Family Court in Karur rejected the maintenance claim, ruling that the grandfather, not being the natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, had no standing to file on the minor’s behalf without court-appointed guardianship. It further noted the father’s solvency and the binding nature of the divorce decree, deeming the petition devoid of legal merit and genuine intent. Undeterred, the grandfather’s counsel argued in the High Court that both parents had “prosperously remarried” and neglected the child, with the father’s contributions limited to insurance and a one-time deposit. Priya, gainfully employed at a bank with a “lucrative salary,” was urged to share educational and medical expenses, as the grandfather’s meager pension fell short of the child’s needs. They accused the Family Court of dismissing the case on “hyper-technical” grounds despite the father’s alleged failure in ongoing parental duties.
Priya’s counsel countered vehemently, portraying the petition as a blatant abuse of process aimed at shattering her hard-earned peace. The divorce decree’s terms were sacrosanct, they argued, with Anandaraj – earning around Rs. 1 lakh monthly at Trichy Airport – fully obligated and able as the natural guardian. The grandfather hadn’t even impleaded his own son in the suit, rendering it procedurally flawed. Priya, now mother to two children from her second marriage, had never interfered in her ex-husband’s life. Reopening settled matters would intrude upon her constitutional right to privacy and stability, they contended.
After hearing both sides and scrutinizing the record, Justice Gowri dissected the core issues with surgical precision. On locus standi, she affirmed, “Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973, confers a right upon certain categories of dependents… In the case of a minor, the petition ordinarily must be instituted by or through the natural guardian, who under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, is the father, and after him, the mother. In the present case, the father is very much alive and is financially capable. The paternal grandfather, unless appointed as a guardian by a competent Court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, cannot assume the capacity of a natural guardian or file legal proceedings representing the child.” This, she held, made the Family Court’s stance “legally sound.”
Turning to the divorce decree’s irrevocability, the judge stressed its finality: “Such an arrangement, once accepted and recorded by a competent Court, attains finality. Neither party can, under the guise of a new proceeding, indirectly modify or nullify its effect. The attempt by the petitioner’s grandfather to resurrect the issue of maintenance, by targeting the respondent–mother after years of her remarriage, runs contrary to the sanctity of that consent decree.” The court pierced the veil of the revision’s motive, observing that it was less about child welfare and more about disruption: “This Court cannot overlook the underlying motive behind the present revision. The respondent–mother has lawfully remarried and is now the mother of two children from her second marriage. She has not interfered in the life of her former husband or his family. The present proceeding, instituted by her former father-in-law, is in substance an attempt to disturb the calm and dignity of her new matrimonial life.”
In a poignant invocation of co-parenting ideals, Justice Gowri elaborated, “It is indeed the moral and legal duty of both parents to co-parent and contribute to the child’s well-being. However, such responsibility must be exercised within the bounds of mutual respect and final judicial determinations… Any attempt by one family branch to use the child as an instrument to reopen past marital discord amounts to judicial harassment and undermines the principle of co-parenting through peaceful separation.” She extended this to the societal canvas: “The institution of marriage and its dissolution carry not only emotional but also societal implications. When two adults, through mutual consent, dissolve their marriage, the law expects them to extend parental cooperation without interfering in each other’s reconstituted family lives. True co-parenting does not consist in litigating against one another but in ensuring that the child’s welfare is secured through agreed means.”
The judgment culminates in a resolute epilogue, finding “no infirmity” in the Family Court’s order and dismissing the revision as a “misconceived attempt” to unsettle Priya’s life, despite the father’s clear obligations. “This Court deprecates such misuse of maintenance provisions to reopen closed chapters of matrimonial litigation and reiterates that co-parenting after divorce must be guided by cooperation, not confrontation. Parents who have lawfully chosen new paths must be permitted to live in peace, while ensuring that the child’s welfare is safeguarded in the manner mutually agreed upon.” No costs were imposed.
Legal experts hail this as a beacon for women’s rights in family law, potentially curbing exploitative post-divorce litigations. It reinforces that while parental duties endure, they cannot justify invading a woman’s Article 21-protected sphere of privacy and dignity. As India grapples with rising divorce rates and evolving family dynamics, Justice Gowri’s words serve as a timely reminder: the child’s best interest lies in harmony, not in the shadows of unresolved grudges. This verdict could inspire similar safeguards across courts, ensuring that separation heals rather than haunts.