The mother’s counsel further relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling in Raj Kumari vs. Yashoda Devi and another, wherein it was held that “Under Section 125 of the Code, the father or a, husband or a son. as the case may be, is the only person that can be proceeded against.”
The counsel also referred to the judgment in Mst. Dhulki vs. State to buttress his argument.
However, Justice Purohit declined to accept this position, pointing out that the judgments were passed in 1959 and 1977 when women were mostly uneducated and unemployed. Since then, there has been a sea of change in the status of women, he observed.
“The revisionist herself is a Government Teacher, who at present, would be getting a minimum ₹1,00,000 as salary and as such, there is no illegality and impropriety in the impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2013 passed by learned Judge, Family Court,” the Court concluded.
Accordingly, it dismissed the mother’s challenge to the family court’s March 2013 order.
Source: Barandbench
