The counsel seeks permission to address the judge as my lord/your lordship.

The present petition has been filed u/s 125 of crpc, the counsel humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this court

If the facts are clear, the counsel seeks permission to state the issues-

The counsel will be dealing with 3 issues-

1. WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITON IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,1973?

2. WHETHER FATHER IS BOUND TO MAINTAIN THE CHILDREN AFTER DIVORCE EVEN WHEN CHILDREN
ARE IN CUSTODY OF WIFE AND WIFE HAS FOREGONE THEIR RIGHT OF MAINTENANCE?

3. WHETHER THE WIFE CAN CLAIM MAINTENANCE FOR CHILDREN ON GROUND OF CHANGE IN
CIRCUMSTANCES?

The counsel seeks permission to advance the arguments issuewise.

1. The first issue is WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITON IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER THE CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE,1973?
The first point of consideration is whether wife and children can claim maintenance under section
125. Section 125 (1) states that-
1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain—
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child,
Bare reading of it makes it clear that wife and minor children are entitled to claim maintenance.
In Rajnesh vs Neha and anr ,(2021) the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that:-
“if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband”.
In this present case, even after the petitioner is earning, she can still invoke section 125 in the light of
precedent laid down by the Apex court. The twins being born in the 2010, are below 18 i.e. they are
entitled to right of maintenance being minors.

The second point of consideration is whether the essential conditions of claiming maintenance are
fulfilled.
1. Sufficient means to maintain:
According to Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the person from whom
maintenance is claimed must have sufficient means to maintain the person or persons claiming
maintenanceIn the present case, Jim is an IAS officer which makes it obvious that he is earning a
handsome amount of money, therefore he has the sufficient means to maintain his children.
2. Neglect or refusal to maintain: As per Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
person from whom maintenance is claimed must have neglected or refused to maintain the
person or persons entitled to claim maintenance.
Neglect means a default or omission in the absence of a demand whereas 'refuse' means a
failure to maintain a default or a denial of obligation to maintain after demand. A neglect or
refusal to maintain may be by words or by conduct. It may be expressed or implied. When there
is duty to maintain, mere failure or omission may amount to neglect or refusal.
In Balbir Singh vs Hardeep Singh, the court stated that “if the child is living with mother who is
its natural guardian, the father is bound to maintain it and it is not open to him to impose a
condition that the child must live with him”.
Therefore, in the present case, Jim is bound to maintain the twins and his omission to maintain
amounts to neglect.
 3. Person claiming maintenance must be unable to maintain herself:
The maintenance has to be determined in the light of the standard of living of the person
concerned. The amount of maintenance should be such that the woman should be in a position to
maintain herself and that it should not be much below the status which she was used to at the
place of her husband.
In the present case, the petitioner being a school teacher is earning a moderate income, and
she is trying her level best to provide for best quality of education to her children. Being the
sole earning member with a moderate income and responsibility of two children, she is unable
to accommodate the excessive school fees and other expenses, whereas their father, being an
IAS officer is living the lavish lifestyle of bureaucrats. The petitioner is unable to provide for
her children, the standard of living which their father can easily provide.
Therefore, the present petition is filed before this hon’ble court and is maintainable as essentials for
granting maintenance have been satisfied.

The third point of consideration is that whether a divorced wife can claim maintenance.

Explanation.— (b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her
husband and has not remarried.

Explanation (b) to section 125 makes it aptly clear that wife includes a woman who has been divorced and has
not remarried. By this extended definition of term wife, the right to claim maintenance is made available to a
divorced wife.

In Padmanabhan vs. Bhargavi Sarojini, it has been held that a wife who became divorcee by mutual consent by
executing a document would fall within the scope of inclusive definition of wife given in Explanation (b) to
section 125(1).

In the present case, petitioner being a divorced wife by mutual consent, she is entitled to the right to claim
maintenance from Jim, and therefore the present petition is maintainable under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.

2. The second issue is WHETHER FATHER IS BOUND TO MAINTAIN THE CHILDREN AFTER
DIVORCE EVEN WHEN CHILDREN ARE IN CUSTODY OF WIFE AND WIFE HAS FOREGONE
THEIR RIGHT OF MAINTENANCE?
The first point of consideration is Whether father is bound to maintain the children after divorce when
they are in custody of mother. The position of law regarding this point has been summarized by the full
bench of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the landmark case of Balbir Singh Vs Hardeep
Singh as follows:-
1. “If the child was living with the mother who was its natural guardian, the father is bound to
maintain it and it is not open to him to impose a condition that the child must live with him.
2. Even in a case where the father is the natural guardian, but the child is in the custody of the
mother, father’s obligation to maintain the child subsists.
 In Rajnesh vs. Neha the Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled that both, the working father and working
mother have to take the liability of the child and if the mother is working, it does not mean that the
father will be absolved from taking the responsibility of his child. The father is legally bound to
maintain his child according to the status and lifestyle.
The present case is squarely covered by the landmark decisions of Apex court, therefore, Jim is bound
to maintain the children even though they are in the custody of Pam.

The second point of consideration is Whether mother can forego the right of maintenance of minor
children?
it is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that a mother can forego the right of maintenance of
herself during divorce by mutual agreement but she cannot forego the right of maintenance of her
minor children.
This position has been made clear by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ganesh vs.
Sudhirkumar Srivastava and ors. The court observed:-
"It was certainly open to the wife to give up any claim so far as maintenance or permanent alimony or
stridhan but she could not have given up the rights which vest in the daughter insofar as maintenance
and other issues are concerned”
The Supreme Court has observed that a mother cannot give up the rights which vest in the daughter
insofar as maintenance and other issues are concerned during divorce by mutual consent.
In Fateh Saharan vs Rohit Saharan , the Delhi High Court has observed that a minor child is entitled
to claim maintenance for his upbringing by the father and that such a child is not bound by the divorce
settlement regarding maintenance between his parents.
Therefore, in the present case, the petitioner could not validly forego right of maintenance of minor
children and therefore, she has the right to claim maintenance for children.

3. The third issue is WHETHER THE WIFE CAN CLAIM MAINTENANCE FOR CHILDREN ON
GROUND OF CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES?
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that change in circumstances is a valid ground for the
demand of maintenance. This position has been cleared by the precedents as follows.
In Shyam Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and Another, the court has held that when there is a change
in circumstances entitling a person to be a claimant as per Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
he or she may apply for the maintenance.
There may be some instances where a person, is for the time being able to maintain himself or herself
loses her/his resources because of changed circumstances. In such cases a fresh right to claim
maintenance may accrue.
Therefore a fresh petition for maintenance is maintainable on account of change in circumstances.
T. Vimala v. S. Ramakrishnan, it was stated that the obligation of a father to maintain, to meet the
educational expenses of his children cannot be excluded for the component of maintenance.
 In the present case, as the minor children are entitled for maintenance, a fresh claim of maintenance can
be made due inflation and increase in school fees as these amount to change in circumstances which is
a valid ground for claiming maintenance as per the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court.

PRAYER -Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
requested that this Honorable Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. That the present petition is maintainable and the respondent father is bound to maintain children after
divorce.

2. Direct the respondent to pay Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance for children

And/Or

Pass any such order as the Honorable Court deems fit and proper according to the circumstances of the present
case.

FOR THIS THE PLAINITIFF SHALL DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY