Menu

Maintenance under guardian and wards act, 1890: An Interpretative Analysis in Light of Contemporary Custody Battles

Publications, Research paper
ABSTRACT

This study explores how the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890 should be interpreted and used, focusing on support for youngsters in current custody issues. Although the statute specifies the statutory requirements for selecting parents and their responsibilities, it does not mention financial support to promote child welfare. Despite the lack, the paper contends that the judiciary has the fundamental authority to mandate financial support to encourage the child’s welfare. Notwithstanding this lack, the journal argued that judicial bodies have the inbuilt duty to pay for the minor’s needs, and they can choose to mandate that one of the spouses pay for these fees.

Keyword:

Maintenance, Minors Rights, Custody Battles, Guardianship, Interim Maintenance, Welfare of the Minor, Personal Laws

INTRODUCTION

The Guardians and Wards Act of 1890 Established the legal framework for appointing or declaring of a guardian for a minor, outlining the procedures to be followed. Whether a person is a minor or is not a minor is essentially just a matter of age. Section 4(1) of the Act defines a ‘minor’ as a person domiciled in India who has not yet reached the age of majority, which is attained only upon turning eighteen years old The word “guardian” gets a mention under section 4(2) of the Act as someone who takes care of the minor’s person or property or both This Act provides for the power of the courts while dealing with petitions for the appointment of guardians alongside deciding issues of custody during the pendency of such petitions. The act also specifies the duties and authorities of a court-appointed guardian. The underlying reason for guardianship and custody is to ensure the minor receives adequate care for their overall development. Section 22 of the Act allows for allowances to be paid to the guardian on the grounds “for his care and pains in the execution of his duties” and there is no particular provision for maintenance to be paid for the wellbeing of the minor. The present comprehensive research paper contends that, even in the absence of a specific provision, the court possesses the inherent authority to grant maintenance or cover the expenses of the minor. In addition to that, the court has proper discretion to order one of the parents to bear these costs. 

OBJECTIVES(S) OF THE STUDY 

The objectives of this paper were as mentioned:

  1. To understand The Guardians and Wards Act of 1890 with its objective and ratio.
  2. To analyse the rights given to the minor in the form of maintenance.
  3. To understand the power to award maintenance and interim maintenance 

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY 

In our nation, it is illegal for a minor to behave freely because of their physical immaturity and psychological behaviour, each of them needs proper care and guidance. Therefore, in our nation, there are two distinct categories: the wards and the guardianship of both the private and general laws. Where the enactment of this act as to outline the welfare of the minor is to be the paramount consideration. Also ensures the rights and duties of the guardians as well as the court to act responsibly while ensuring the welfare of the minor is prioritised. Studying this act also provides a multidisciplinary perspective examining this act also offers multiple perspectives on civil rights, rules of conduct and social issues.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature surrounding guardianship, as well as the maintenance of minors in India, is rooted in several key statutory provisions and judicial interpretations. It provides a framework for understanding and analysing the interplay between the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890 and the family law. The central contention in the research paper revolves around the fact that the court has the power of the two-award maintenance for a minor during guardianship proceedings, – despite the lack of presence of an explicit provision under the Act. This very review breaks down the different aspects of maintenance. 

Review key studies on the topic, focusing on

  1. The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

The Act deals with the appointment or declaration of guardians for minors and the determination of their custody. While it stresses the welfare of the minor as the paramount consideration in judicial proceedings, the paper argues that the Act implicitly permits courts to award maintenance for the minor’s wellbeing, including maintenance pendente lite.

  • Section 7 of GWA: It authorises the court to appoint or declare a person as a guardian of the minor when it is in the minor’s best interests. The section particularly states that the “court may make an order accordingly”. The current research paper suggests that the court’s discretion under this section can be expansively interpreted to include orders for maintenance as part of the welfare of the minor. This interpretation properly aligns with the parents patriae jurisdiction exercised by the court, where the welfare of the minor is kept paramount. 
  • Section 12 of GWA: It allows the court to exercise interlocutory orders for the protection of the minor while the proceeding is still pending. Such order includes temporary custody and the protection of the person and property of the minor. Herein, it is highlighted that the word “protection” under this section can be interpreted broadly to include interim maintenance as well. 
  • Section 17 of GWA: It confers the court with the power to consider the welfare of the minor in light of the personal laws applicable to the minor. This section has been referred to as part of the argument that personal laws, which stand as guarantee maintenance for minor children, should harmonise with the Guardians and Wards Act to enable courts to award maintenance in the proceedings of such guardianship.
  • Section 22 of GWA: this section provides for the allowances to be paid to the guardian “for his care and pains in the execution of his duties”, but as it is seen here also, it does not expressly mention the right to maintenance for the minor. 
  1. Personal Law- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: 
  • Section 20: This section entitles a Hindu minor to acquire or receive maintenance from his parents, father or mother, to be precise. Further in this paper, we will see how the right to maintenance is independent and can be enforced in guardianship proceedings under the act. In this case, the argument contended is that personal laws shall be taken into consideration while deciding a case for maintenance, and the same shall be granted as well. 
  1. Other statutes that govern Maintenance-
  • Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): this statute, which was erstwhile the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, defines the right to maintenance for minors when they lack in maintaining themselves. The Paper cites this as a pre-condition for maintenance to be awarded, which is essentially an issue contested during matrimonial proceedings.
  • Family Courts Act, 1984:

Sections 10(3) and 20: these sections state that the Family Court has the power to pass orders for the benefit and welfare of the minor, including granting the maintenance. The paper refers to these provisions to support the view that family courts have wide discretion to grant maintenance in proceedings related to guardianship proceedings.

  1. International Conventions:
  • Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989:

Article 27(4): This International Treaty mandates that states shall take up requisite and appropriate measures to secure the recovery of maintenance for the child from parents. The Paper cites this to argue that the well-being of the minor child, which includes financial requirements, is not just a domestic concern; rather, it is a global concern and should be incorporated into national guardianship laws. 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

Here, both researchers, to finish this study, employed conceptual techniques. To conclude and to understand whether the claim was true, both researchers carefully examined all the accessible materials, including rules, court rulings, bills, publications, and research journals, along with the additional materials. 

HYPOTHESES 

Both researchers will be examining the theories that follow and determining whether or not they are accurate:

  1. Despite the absence of a specific clause, courts may provide support for the minors to protect their welfare under the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890
  2. As stated under Section 12, which grants interlocutory orders to safeguard the minor, the Act implicitly gives the authority to provide interim maintenance for the protection of the minor’s person and property 

RIGHT OF MINOR CHILDREN TO MAINTENANCE

Usually, access to maintenance is associated with the spouse, mostly the wife. There are personal laws specifically enacted to deal with familial affairs alongside t secular laws , which are applied to the whole of India regardless of their religion. Maintenance doesn’t limit itself to maintaining the spouse; rather, it extends to aged and infirm parents and minors As well. Like the maintenance of a spouse, the maintenance of a minor may also get a mention in both personal as well as secular laws. The father of the minor is liable to pay for his maintenance, which has become evident by the interpretation of the Supreme Court in its rulings. With the commencement of revised enactments in 2023, the right of maintenance of a minor is restricted by the minor’s inability to maintain himself. So, under the BNSS (erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the minor’s inability to support himself is a prerequisite for the award of maintenance, and such maintenance is granted only when it is expressly established that the minor can’t financially sustain himself. 

The issue with providing maintenance for a minor child usually arises in matrimonial proceedings between spouses, essentially because under the proceedings for divorce or judicial separation, the wife may seek maintenance not just for herself but also for the minor who is in her custody. In addition to that, the question of a minor’s maintenance may come up with the determination of custody of the child. Given that a minor’s right to maintenance is independent, it should not be contingent upon a single parent seeking maintenance for the child as part of an associated relief in divorce proceedings.  

OBJECTIVE AND RATIO OF THE GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, 1890

Although shielding the interests of a minor child was not explicitly stated as one of the objectives in the Act’s Statement of Object, it is now established that in cases that involve minors, the court’s primary concern has to be the welfare of the child, i.e., the wellbeing of the minor must be the paramount consideration. It is the exclusive and overriding criterion that the courts must consider. The provisions that this Act holds are designed specifically for the child’s welfare, and it should be interpreted broadly to advance the act’s goals rather than to constrain them.. 

The term “welfare of the minor” encompasses a broad range of aspects, which includes financial, physical, moral and socio-religious factors. The United Nations Human Rights Commission, in its Convention on the Rights of the Child held in 1989, mandates in Article 27(4) that state parties “shall take all appropriate measures to ensure the recovery of maintenance for the child from the parents or other individuals financially responsible for the child”. Therefore, although the act does not expressly address the provision of maintenance for a minor, it should be interpreted to include not only physical custody but also the constructive custody held by the guardian. 

MAINTENANCE AUTHORITY IS GRANTED UNDER THE GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT OF 1890

Abiding for the welfare of minors is the primary objective of this act. This entails giving them the right safeguards for their upkeep, cooling and healthcare If the decision is in the most beneficial interest of the minor, the court may designate or declare a guardian. Also, the removal of the guardian who is not appointed by the will and no new appointments until the previous guardian’s authority has expired The court must safely guard the well-being of the minors, which is the main objective of the statute. Because of this, the court can make an order that demonstrates the obligations. From the researchers’ perspectives, the phrase “accordingly “means that restricted reading of the wording would unnecessarily curtail the discretion of the court to make directions that are only mentioned in subclauses (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of section7 of the statute It is best to read the word “accordingly” liberally to include any directives that further the adequate care of the minor and the “purposes of the minors”

Another viewpoint can be used to analyse the problem of maintenance awards under the Act. The Court must take into account both the “welfare of the minor” and the relevant personal legislation governing the minor, according to Section 17(1) of the Act, this statute contains all the processes of procedures. Two important considerations are the legal system’s power and the guardianship appointment procedure. Partners’ and juveniles’ rights are regulated by their private legislation. Accordingly, a guardianship petition within the regulations may be submitted if the minor’s legal status grants them the authority to receive maintenance from either or both of their parents.

Assistance for offspring and old Parents: According to this part, a Hindu should support their offspring, whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, as well as their old or disabled parents throughout the duration of their liv. Is it possible to bring about a right pursuant under Section 18 of the HAM Act by bringing an action under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Because the matter concerns children who are minors, the court exercises its parens patriae discretion whenever establishing judgment under the statuteWhen the tribunal exercises parents’ parental power, it can make judgments that advance the child’s social security, such as granting temporary support. It is also necessary to take these measures when the relevant information and conditions demand it That the minor’s most beneficial interests must be protected, the duty falls on the court of law and all entities involved, especially the guardian. The ward’s health, maintenance, and education can all be addressed by the guardian at the same period.

Under Section 10 of the Family Court Act of 1984 Family Court actions and processes are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and other pertinent legislation, except those covered by Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023. The same powers apply to family courts, which are regarded as civil courts. Moreover, Family Court (Chapter IX) procedures are subject to the Code of Criminal Procedure’s rules. It’s important to note that family courts might create their processes to promote settlements or to ascertain the veracity of information that the parties contest. A quasi-obstinate term that gives priority to its regulations is found in Section 20 of the Family Courts Act,1984. Under the Family Courts Act of 1984, the Family Court has extensive authority to make decisions that put youngsters’ well-being first. Among other things, this gives the court the power to order a non-custodial parent to provide maintenance to the custodial parent on behalf of youngsters.

A maintenance award under the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890 has also been acknowledged by the Delhi High Court. Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, (Kusum Sharma I), In maintenance proceedings, the court established a straightforward framework for submitting a written declaration that details property, obligations, and payments. This was explained in the ruling in the matter of Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma(Kusum Sharma II), which was rendered on May 29, 2017. According to the Delhi High Court, cases under the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890 are also subject to the rules outlined in its ruling on the fourteenth of January of the previous year regarding the production of petitions for support. Per this statute, the Family Court can give compensation. Neither the Delhi High Court’s previous rulings that required testimonies outlining money, resources, and obligations for support under the Guardians and Wards Act as well, therefore overturning ever challenged. Indeed, these choices in Kusum Sharma I and Kusum Sharma II were taken as the precedents by the Supreme Court of India in Rajnesh v. NehaThe Supreme Court affirmed the significance of evaluating the assets, income, and liabilities of parties in matrimonial cases. It upheld the decisions rendered in Kusum Sharma I and Kusum Sharma II, thereby establishing that Family Courts possess the jurisdiction to award maintenance as per the statute.

AUTHORITY TO PERMIT TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE – A REASONABLE CONCLUSION.

It appears fair to propose that an analogous temporary order may be issued if it is recognised that the Court has the authority to guarantee a minor’s sustenance and necessary costs. But as was already said, there is no explicit clause in the statute addressing a minor’s continuation either in or out of guardianship processes. Section 12 of the Act must be consulted to determine if the Act suggests the possibility of interim maintenance.

An explicit entitlement to demand maintenance does not exist under Section 12. Rather, it clarifies that the Court has the authority to provide temporary measures to safeguard children and to offer people and things immediate protectionThe authority granted by Section 12 of the Act must be used to safeguard the minor’s “person” or property and to provide for temporary care of the minor

By studying of Section 12 of the particular statute, it makes it clear that:

  1. In Section 12, the court discusses its power to grant “interlocutory orders.” 
  2. The Court may provide interim care of the minor and protection of the minor’s person or property under Section 12 of the Act. 
  3. Section 12 of the Act gives the court more power than only granting temporary custody of youngsters. “And protection of the person or property of the minor as it thinks proper” is included, indicating that the court has the authority to make several temporary orders. Giving all legislative language its full weight rather than letting any section be meaningless is a key premise of statutory interpretation. Thus, highlighting the wide range of the Court’s jurisdiction, Section 12 gives it the right to make decisions that guarantee the minor’s protection as well as custody
  4. In furtherance of deciding custody, the Court can make any judgements required to safeguard a child. This suggests that safeguarding transcends possession alone; otherwise, the law would have to have a “and” after “custody.” When otherwise indicated by the context, the word “and” in a statute should be understood as adding to the items that come before it
  5. The court may make a variety of orders under Section 12 that are required for a minor’s protection, such as those about maintenance, school fees, and other necessities. Because doing so would go against the intent of the Act, the court’s extensive discretion in issuing these orders should not be restricted.

In Sreenivasagopalan Ananthakrishna v. Meenakshi Tripurari, both the Karnataka High Court and the Bombay High Court have rendered significant rulings acknowledging Section 12 of the Act. Courts may grant monetary support for a minor’s upkeep under this clause. Likewise, in Ramesh Kumar v. Varalakshmi, according to the Bombay High Court, the Act’s Section 12(1) gives the judicial system the authority to execute an “interlocutory order.” This includes paying temporary maintenance to safeguard a minor’s assets and/or well-being. In addition to protecting a child’s urgent necessities, the Karnataka High Court acknowledged that “temporary custody and protection” also includes the vital components of interim maintenance and the minor’s general welfare. This comprehension emphasises our dedication to making sure that each child’s best interests are given priority at trying times.

CONCLUSION

The Guardians and Wards Act of 1890, while it does not explicitly provide for minor child maintenance, should or must be amended and interpreted to include provisions for the welfare of the minor.  Through an extensive reading of the provisions dealt with in the Act, Sections 7 and 12 with the mix of personal laws such as the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956, the court can ensure that the financial needs of a minor are met. As a beneficent piece of legislation, the Act must be interpreted to benefit the intended recipients, who arenone other than the minors. The Act shall be construed in a liberal manner rather than being construed in a narrow or watertight manner. Technicalities shall not come in the way of the court’s duty to act as parens patriae as a support to fulfil their responsibilities and promote the minor’s wellbeing. 

The authority to grant both interim and final maintenance has to be read into the act. To grant such interim maintenance, otherwise known as maintenance pendente lite, Section 12(1) of the Act can be resorted to, which is interpreted widely enough to include the passing of an “interlocutory order” to protect the minor. We have also seen how protection of the minor includes providing for the minor’s expenses, education, head

REFERENCES
  1. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, 1960 SCC Online SC 29.
  2. Anu Kaul v. Rajeev Kaul, AIR 2009 SC 121.
  3. Anuj Garg and Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg., (2022) SCC Online SC 1314.
  4. Chander Prabha v. Prem Nath Kapur, 1969 SCC OnLine Del 37.
  5. Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 557.
  6. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products v. Union of India, (2000) 1 SCC 426.
  7. Jairam Gurnani v. Shanta Gurnani, (1978) SCC Online Del 150.
  8. Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11796.
  9. Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma,2015 SCC OnLine Del 6793.
  10. Murari Lal v. Saraswati, (1924) SCC Online Lah 313.
  11. Narinder Kaur v. Parshotam Singh, (1987) SCC Online Del 440.
  12. Neha Tyagi v. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi., (2022) 3 SCC 86.
  13. P. Srinivas Rao case, 2001 SCC Online AP 1034
  14. Ram Murti Chopra v. Nagesh Tyagi, 2008 SCC Online Del 1095.
  15. Ramesh Kumar v. Varalakshmi,2009 SCC OnLine Kar 164.
  16. Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindya Pradesh, (1953) 2 SCC 11.
  17. Rosy Jacob Case, (1973) 1 SCC 840
  18. Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC 840.
  19. Sreenivasagopalan Ananthakrishna v. Meenakshi Tripurari,2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6139.
  20. Tara Chand Mavar v. Smt. Basanti Devi, 1988 SCC Online 450. 
  21. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
  22. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, No.05,1908 (India). 
  23. Code of Criminal Procedure,1974, No.2, Acts of the Parliament,1973 (India).
  24. Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, No. 8, Acts of Parliament, 1986 (India).
  25. Family Court Act, 1984, S.20, No.66, Acts of the Parliament,1984 (India).
  26. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, No.8, Acts of Parliament,1890 (India).
  27. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, No. 56, Acts of Parliament, 2007 (India).
  28. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1986 (India).
  29. Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, No. 3, Acts of Parliament, 1936 (India).
  30. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 2005 (India).
  31. The Divorce Act, 1869, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1869 (India).
  32. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, S. 20, No. 32, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
  33. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India).
  34. The Majority Act, 1875, No. 9, Acts of Parliament,1875 (India).
  35. The Special Marriage Act, 1954, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1954 (India).
  36. Indulia, B. and Ridhi (2025) Maintenance under the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890: An interpretative analysis, SCC Times.:https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/01/15/maintenance-under-the-guardians-wards-act-1890-an-interpretative-analysis/ (Accessed: 20 February 2025).

NAME- PRATEEK BAL 

COLLEGE NAME- SOA NATIONAL OF LAW, BHUBANESWAR