Landmark Judgments on Mother’s Rights in India

Indian courts have consistently recognised mothers as central rights-holders in family law, affirming their dignity, autonomy, and caregiving role. Through landmark judgments, the judiciary has upheld mothers’ independent rights to maintenance, custody, guardianship, decision-making over a child’s identity, and protection from stigma or economic neglect, always guided by the paramount consideration of welfare.

These rulings reflect a clear shift from formal patriarchal notions to a humane, mother-centric approach that prioritises the lived realities and constitutional rights of women and children in India.

Landmark Judgments on Mother’s Rights in India

1) Mother can Claim Maintenance from Children Even If Husband is Alive

The Kerala High Court, in Farookh v. Kayyakkutty @ Kadeeja (2025), held that a mother’s statutory right to seek maintenance from her children under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 125 CrPC) is independent of her husband’s obligation to maintain her, even if the husband is alive and allegedly earning.

Upholding the Family Court’s order granting ₹5,000 per month to a 60-year-old mother, the Court ruled that children with sufficient means cannot evade responsibility by pointing to the father’s existence, their own family obligations, or by expecting the aged mother to undertake physically demanding work for survival.

2) Mother’s Custody Rights Upheld Under Paramount Welfare Principle

The Delhi High Court in Gautam Mehra v. Sonia Mehra (2025), reaffirmed that in child custody disputes, the welfare of the minor is the overriding consideration and prevails over competing parental rights. Upholding the Family Court’s order granting interim custody of the two minor children to the mother, the Court found no error in applying the welfare test or in evaluating the children’s wishes.

Stressing emotional stability, continuity of care, and the importance of maternal nurturing, particularly in light of the daughter’s maturity and stated preference, the Court held that unproven allegations and unilateral conduct could not displace a welfare-centric determination, and therefore declined appellate interference under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

3) Mother’s Right to Financial Support Cannot Be Denied

In R. Ananda Prakash & Ors. v. A. Malarvizhi (2025), the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court reaffirmed that the obligation to maintain a wife and mother is both a legal and moral duty of the husband and sons, which cannot be avoided merely on the ground of separate residence or alleged financial constraints. Upholding the Family Court’s order granting ₹21,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC ( Section 144 BNSS), the Court held that such provisions are welfare-oriented and aimed at preventing destitution.

It emphasised that, given rising living costs, the amount awarded was neither excessive nor disproportionate, and that courts should adopt a humane, dignity-centric approach while enforcing maintenance rights of elderly wives and mothers.

4) Mother’s Exclusive Right to Decide Child’s Surname and Adoption Upheld

In Mrs. Akella Lalitha v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao & Anr. (2022), the Supreme Court held that upon the death of the biological father, the mother becomes the sole natural guardian of the minor child and is fully entitled to decide the child’s surname and give the child in adoption, including to her second husband after remarriage.

The Court set aside the High Court’s direction requiring restoration of the biological father’s surname, observing that courts cannot grant relief beyond the pleadings and should not interfere in matters of parental choice unless a specific prayer is made and the child’s welfare clearly demands it.

Emphasising the child’s dignity, identity, and psychological well-being, the Court ruled that forcing a different surname or marking the adoptive parent as “step-father” could harm the child’s self-esteem and social integration, and therefore such directions were legally unsustainable.

5) Mother as Natural Guardian Can Sell Joint Family Property Without Court Permission

The Bombay High Court in Pooja w/o Ganesh Popalghat v. State of Maharashtra (2025), held that a mother, acting as the natural guardian and manager of a Hindu joint family, does not require prior court permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 to alienate joint family property involving the undivided interests of her minor children, provided the transaction is for legal necessity or the minors’ benefit.

Setting aside the District Court’s refusal, the Court clarified that Sections 6 and 12 of the Act exclude minors’ undivided interests in joint family property from Section 8’s permission regime, reaffirming that customary Hindu law governs such dealings and that bona fide alienations for necessity or benefit are valid.

6) Right of Mothers to Sole Parental Identification in Official Records

In XXXXXX v. The Registrar of Births and Deaths Pathanamthitta Municipality & Ors. (2022), the Kerala High Court affirmed that a person is entitled to have only the mother’s name recorded in birth certificates and identity documents, holding that compelling disclosure of the father’s name, particularly in cases of unwed mothers or survivors of sexual assault, can violate privacy, dignity and personal autonomy.

The Court observed that insistence on the father’s name may cause “unimaginable mental agony” and stigmatisation, clarified that a child born to an unwed mother enjoys full constitutional protection, and thereby reinforced a mother-centric, rights-based approach to identity and civil registration.

7) Mother’s Custody Preferred Over Natural Guardianship Claim of Father

In Devnath Ratre v. Malti Ratre (2022), the Court upheld the custody of a minor daughter with her mother, rejecting the father’s claim based solely on his status as a natural guardian. Emphasising that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the Court found that the father lacked sufficient income and support systems to adequately care for the child, while the mother was providing a stable upbringing and education.

The Court also highlighted the special biological, emotional, and psychological needs of a girl child approaching puberty, holding that such needs are better addressed under the mother’s care, and reaffirmed that parental rights cannot override the best interests and welfare of the child.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams