Introduction:

The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that the right of minor children to seek maintenance from their father remains independent of disputes concerning their custody and guardianship. Upholding a trial court’s order permitting a maternal grandmother to represent minor children in pending maintenance proceedings following the death of their mother, the High Court held that the father’s claim to natural guardianship and his pending custody proceedings could not, by themselves, extinguish the children’s statutory right to maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Justice Sunil Beniwal, while deciding the challenge brought by the children’s biological father, emphasised that custody and maintenance proceedings address different legal questions. Custody proceedings primarily determine with whom children should reside, with their welfare serving as the paramount consideration. Maintenance proceedings, on the other hand, concern the legal obligation to provide financial support to eligible dependants. The pendency of a dispute over custody therefore does not automatically prevent minor children from pursuing a maintenance claim through a competent representative.

The case arose from maintenance proceedings originally initiated by the children’s mother against their father. During the subsistence of the matrimonial dispute, the father had also instituted proceedings seeking dissolution of the marriage. The marriage was dissolved ex parte in November 2025. Subsequently, in February 2026, the children’s mother passed away, creating a difficulty concerning the continuation of the maintenance proceedings she had initiated on behalf of the minors.

Following the mother’s death, the father approached the court seeking custody of the children from their maternal grandmother. He asserted that, as their biological father and natural guardian, he was entitled to seek their custody and was prepared to maintain them according to his financial means. The maternal grandmother, who was then caring for the children, separately applied to the trial court for permission to continue the pending maintenance proceedings on their behalf.

The trial court allowed the grandmother’s application, permitting her to represent the children for the limited purpose of pursuing their maintenance claim. The father challenged that order before the Rajasthan High Court, contending, among other things, that his status as the natural guardian and his willingness to take responsibility for the children made it inappropriate for the maternal grandmother to act on their behalf.

The High Court was thus required to consider whether the death of the person who originally instituted maintenance proceedings on behalf of minor children would bring their claim to an end, and whether the biological father’s assertion of natural guardianship could prevent another competent person from representing the children in those proceedings. The dispute also raised the question of whether permission to continue a maintenance claim could be treated as a determination of custody or a declaration of permanent guardianship.

Section 144 of the BNSS provides a statutory mechanism for claiming maintenance from persons who are legally obliged to support specified dependants, subject to the conditions laid down in the provision. It is intended to address the failure or neglect to maintain eligible dependants and provides a summary remedy designed to prevent destitution and hardship. Where minor children seek maintenance from their father, the focus is on their entitlement to support under the statutory framework rather than on resolving every issue concerning parental rights or long-term custody.

The distinction is particularly important when a parent who was conducting proceedings on behalf of minor children dies before the claim is decided. The children’s substantive entitlement does not necessarily disappear because the person representing them is no longer alive. A suitable person may need to be permitted to act on their behalf so that the proceedings can continue and their interests can be considered by the competent court.

At the same time, the question of who should represent children in a maintenance case must not be confused with the separate question of who should have their custody. A person permitted to pursue a financial claim on behalf of minors does not automatically acquire permanent guardianship, nor does such permission necessarily determine where the children should live. Those matters remain subject to the applicable law and the orders of the competent court.

In the present case, the maternal grandmother was already caring for the children when she sought permission to continue the proceedings. The trial court considered it appropriate to allow her to represent them for that limited purpose. The High Court upheld the decision, holding that the father’s claims concerning natural guardianship, custody and his willingness to maintain the children involved disputed factual issues that could not be conclusively determined merely through the pending maintenance proceedings.

The ruling reinforces a child-centred approach to family disputes. It recognises that maintenance is not simply an incidental consequence of a custody dispute, but an independent legal obligation whose enforcement should not be frustrated by the death of a parent or by the pendency of separate proceedings. The central concern is that minor children should not lose access to a statutory remedy because the adult who originally represented them is no longer available to continue the case.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner, who was the biological father of the minor children, challenged the trial court’s decision permitting their maternal grandmother to pursue the maintenance proceedings. His principal contention was based on his status as the children’s natural guardian. He argued that he was their father and was ready and willing to take custody of them and maintain them according to his financial means. From his perspective, allowing the maternal grandmother to continue the proceedings on their behalf was inconsistent with his asserted parental and guardianship rights.

The petitioner’s position rested on the distinction between a natural parent and another relative seeking to represent minor children. He maintained that the maternal grandmother could not claim preference over him in matters concerning the children’s custody merely because they were presently residing with her. His willingness to take responsibility for the children, he argued, was relevant to the question of who should care for them and provide for their needs.

The fact that the mother had died was central to the procedural background. The maintenance proceedings had originally been instituted by her on behalf of the children, but her death meant that another person would have to take steps if the claim were to continue. The petitioner’s challenge effectively questioned whether the maternal grandmother should be permitted to occupy that role while the dispute over custody remained unresolved.

His argument also reflected a concern that allowing the grandmother to represent the children could affect, or be perceived as affecting, the pending custody proceedings. Since he had already sought custody from the grandmother, he maintained that his position as the biological father and natural guardian should be taken into account rather than allowing the maternal grandmother to continue acting on behalf of the children.

However, the petitioner’s asserted willingness to maintain the children and his claim to custody were matters that required consideration on their own facts and under the applicable legal framework. A statement of willingness to provide financial support does not, by itself, determine whether the children’s existing maintenance claim should be discontinued. Similarly, the assertion of natural guardianship does not automatically resolve all questions about the children’s welfare or determine the appropriate representative for a pending statutory claim.

The maternal grandmother’s position, as reflected in the proceedings, was that the maintenance case should not come to an end merely because the children’s mother had died. The children remained minors, and their claim against their father had not been finally determined. Since the grandmother was presently caring for them, she sought the trial court’s permission to continue the case on their behalf.

Her application was directed towards preserving the children’s ability to pursue maintenance rather than obtaining a final determination of custody through those proceedings. The immediate issue was how the children could continue to be represented after the death of the mother who had originally initiated the claim. Unless another competent person was allowed to act on their behalf, the proceedings risked being stalled or discontinued for a reason unrelated to the merits of their entitlement to maintenance.

The grandmother’s role in the case was therefore significant in practical terms. The children required representation to pursue a pending legal claim, and she was the person then caring for them. Permitting her to continue the proceedings offered a means of ensuring that their financial interests could be considered without requiring the maintenance case to await the outcome of the separate custody dispute.

The distinction between maintenance and custody was central to the competing positions. The petitioner relied on his status as the natural guardian and his willingness to take the children into his care. The grandmother’s application, however, concerned the continuation of the maintenance proceedings rather than a final determination of who should have custody. The two questions could not automatically be treated as interchangeable.

The available case summary does not set out every submission made by the parties in detail, and it would therefore be inappropriate to attribute additional arguments that have not been reported. Nevertheless, the essential dispute before the High Court was clear: whether the father’s claim to natural guardianship and his pending custody application justified preventing the maternal grandmother from representing the minors in a maintenance proceeding that their mother had initiated before her death.

The Court had to balance the father’s asserted parental rights against the children’s independent interest in maintaining their pending claim. It also had to consider the limited scope of the trial court’s order. The question was not whether the grandmother should permanently replace the father as guardian, or whether the father should ultimately receive custody. Rather, it was whether the grandmother could be permitted to take the procedural steps necessary to pursue the children’s maintenance claim while the separate custody proceedings remained pending.

This distinction allowed the High Court to examine the trial court’s order without deciding disputed questions that belonged to the custody proceedings. It also prevented the procedural issue concerning representation from becoming a substitute for a determination of the children’s long-term living arrangements and welfare.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Sunil Beniwal of the Rajasthan High Court upheld the trial court’s order permitting the maternal grandmother to represent the minor children in the pending maintenance proceedings. The Court held that custody and maintenance proceedings operate in distinct legal fields and that the pendency of a custody dispute cannot, by itself, defeat the independent right of minor children to seek maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS.

The Court’s reasoning began with the nature and purpose of the two types of proceedings. Custody proceedings concern the question of who should have the care and custody of children. The overriding consideration in such proceedings is the welfare of the minors, assessed in light of the relevant circumstances. The court dealing with custody must consider the facts necessary to determine the arrangement that best serves the children’s interests.

Maintenance proceedings have a different objective. They concern the statutory obligation to provide financial support to eligible dependants. In the case of minor children, the proceedings provide a mechanism through which their entitlement to maintenance from a legally responsible person can be examined. The question is whether the statutory requirements for maintenance are satisfied, not whether one parent or another relative should have permanent custody.

The High Court held that these distinct purposes must be kept separate. A person’s claim to custody does not automatically determine whether the children may pursue maintenance through another competent representative. Equally, allowing a relative to represent the children in a maintenance case does not decide the custody dispute in that relative’s favour.

The Court expressly rejected the proposition that the father’s claim to natural guardianship or his institution of custody proceedings was, by itself, sufficient to extinguish the children’s maintenance claim. As the Court explained, the petitioner’s claim to be the natural guardian and his willingness to take custody might be relevant to the separate custody proceedings, but those matters did not independently provide a basis for terminating the pending maintenance case.

This approach reflects an important distinction between parental status and the procedural rights of children. A father’s position as a natural guardian may carry legal significance, but it does not mean that every question concerning his children must be decided in his favour solely on that basis. The applicable legal principles and the children’s welfare remain important, and separate proceedings must be determined according to the issues properly before the court.

The High Court also addressed the effect of the mother’s death on the maintenance proceedings. The children’s mother had initiated the claim on their behalf, but her death did not mean that the children’s underlying claim necessarily came to an end. The Court recognised that the minors continued to have interests requiring legal representation and that, following the mother’s death, a competent person had to be able to pursue the proceedings on their behalf.

The Court’s reasoning was rooted in the independent nature of the children’s claim. The maintenance proceeding had been initiated for their benefit, and the death of the person who originally represented them did not, in itself, extinguish the statutory right they sought to enforce. A procedural change in representation was therefore necessary to prevent the case from being brought to an end solely because the mother was no longer available to conduct it.

The Court observed that the children’s maintenance claim did not perish with the death of the person who had initially instituted proceedings on their behalf. This principle is significant because it distinguishes the rights of minor beneficiaries from the continued availability of the adult who represents them. Where a parent dies while a claim remains pending, the court must consider whether an appropriate person can be permitted to continue the proceedings so that the children’s interests are not left without representation.

The High Court accordingly considered the maternal grandmother’s request in the context of the children’s immediate circumstances. She was presently caring for the minors and had applied for permission to continue the maintenance case. The trial court had allowed that application, thereby ensuring that the children’s pending claim could proceed notwithstanding the death of their mother.

The High Court found no sufficient basis to interfere with that order. Permitting the grandmother to represent the children was a procedural measure designed to enable the maintenance proceedings to continue. It did not require the court to decide the father’s custody claim or determine that the grandmother was entitled to permanent guardianship.

The Court was particularly clear on this limitation. It held that by allowing the maternal grandmother to represent the minors in the maintenance proceedings, the court was neither deciding the ultimate question of custody nor declaring the grandmother to be their permanent guardian. The order had to be understood according to its limited purpose: enabling the pending maintenance claim to be pursued on behalf of the children.

This clarification is important because disputes concerning children can involve overlapping questions of residence, care, guardianship and financial support. An order addressing one of these issues should not automatically be treated as resolving the others. The legal consequences of a procedural decision depend on the question that the court was asked to decide and the scope of the order actually passed.

The Court also considered the nature of the father’s contentions. His claims that he was the natural guardian, that he was willing to maintain the children and that he should be granted custody involved factual and legal questions that required appropriate adjudication. Those matters could not be conclusively resolved within the maintenance proceedings merely to determine who should represent the children in the pending case.

The father’s willingness to maintain the minors was therefore not treated as a sufficient reason to terminate their existing claim. The maintenance proceedings provided the forum for considering the children’s statutory entitlement, while the custody proceedings were the appropriate avenue for deciding where they should reside and who should care for them. The Court’s approach ensured that neither proceeding would automatically displace the other.

The ruling also avoided prejudging the father’s application for custody. The High Court did not hold that the maternal grandmother was entitled to custody merely because she was permitted to represent the children in the maintenance case. Nor did it rule that the father’s natural guardianship was legally irrelevant in every respect. Instead, it held that those considerations could not, on their own, extinguish the children’s right to pursue maintenance.

In substance, the Court maintained a separation between the children’s financial rights and the disputed question of their living arrangements. The custody court could examine the relevant facts and determine the arrangement that best served the minors’ welfare. Meanwhile, the maintenance case could proceed through a competent representative, subject to the orders of the court dealing with that matter.

The Court further recognised that the death of the mother created a practical necessity for the children’s maintenance claim to be represented by another person. If the proceedings could not continue because the original applicant had died, the minors could lose the opportunity to have their claim considered for a reason unrelated to its merits. Permitting the grandmother to act on their behalf prevented that procedural difficulty from becoming an obstacle to the consideration of their statutory entitlement.

The judgment is also significant in clarifying that the mere pendency of another proceeding does not necessarily suspend or extinguish an independent legal remedy. Custody and maintenance may arise from the same family circumstances, but their distinct purposes allow them to proceed independently, subject to the orders passed by the competent courts. Each proceeding must be decided on its own legal requirements and the issues properly presented for determination.

The High Court did not, on the facts provided, rely on any specfically identified judicial precedent. Its rea