Wife accused husband working abroad of cruelty over son’s maintenance; Kerala HC cancelled complaint on this ground

The Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, recently gave relief to a father from Kottayam by quashing all criminal proceedings against him filed by his wife under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act for allegedly failing to provide for basic needs and maintenance to their son. When he was working abroad, she had filed a complaint with the Judicial Magistrate of first class in Changanacherry.

The magistrate after receiving her complaint forwarded the same to Changanacherry Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The police registered a criminal case and, after investigation, the police filed a final report alleging the commission of an offence by the father which is punishable under Section 75.

However, he always maintained the position that he might be absent from home as he worked abroad and could not come home often, but he provided for his wife and son who lived back in Kerala.


The father’s Advocate Shaijan C. George and Advocate Sajitha George told the Kerala High Court that he has sufficient income generating assets in Kerala which continues to be with his wife and son and they are enjoying its benefits. The father’s Advocates also told the court that there was never a incident in their family where he had assaulted, abandoned or abused his son.

The wife’s lawyers told the Kerala High Court that the allegation that a father had abandoned his child and neglected to provide for his basic needs and maintenance cannot be viewed lightly. According to her lawyers, quashing the criminal proceedings in a case of this nature would send a wrong signal to society and may encourage persons similarly inclined to neglect their children.

Also read: Husband refused to pay Rs 9,000 maintenance, saying wife abandoned home and ignored parents; Karnataka HC rejects his plea for this reason

On August 11, 2026, the father won the case in the Kerala High Court.

Why did the father win the case?

Advocate Malak Bhatt, Chamber Head at Chambers of Malak Bhatt, said to ET Wealth Online that under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act the law penalises a person who, having actual charge of or control over a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects the child in a manner likely to cause unnecessary mental or physical suffering.

The Kerala High Court found that this essential ingredient, actual charge or control at the relevant time, was absent on the complainant's own case: the complaint disclosed that the father was employed abroad and that the minor son was residing in the custody of the mother.

Bhatt says: "Paternity by itself does not establish actual charge or control, and failure to pay maintenance by a father not shown to have such charge does not attract Section 75."

Regarding the mother, Bhatt says that this Kerala High Court judgement only decides only that a penal provision was not attracted. It does not affect the child's right to maintenance, which stands on an independent footing.

Bhatt says: "The mother may pursue maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which corresponds to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and under the applicable personal law before the Family Court"


According to Bhatt, monetary relief for herself and the child is also available under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, since economic abuse expressly includes denial of resources the child is entitled to. A challenge to the quashing order before the Supreme Court also remains open.

Kerala High Court discussion

Father was working abroad, mother had custody of child

Justice Jobin Sebastian of Kerala High Court at Ernakulam said that in the present case, a plain reading of the private complaint itself indicates that he was working abroad.

The Kerala High Court observed that it is evident from the allegations that the minor child was residing with and was under the care and custody of the wife, who is the complainant in the present case.

The Kerala High Court observed: “There is no specific allegation or material to indicate that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was having actual charge of or control over the child.”

The Kerala High Court said that the father’s advocate rightly argued that merely because he is the father of the child, by itself, would not satisfy the statutory requirement of having actual charge of or control over the child for the purpose of Section 75 of the J.J. Act.

The Kerala High Court said: “There must be material indicating that the accused had actual charge of or control over the child and, while having such charge or control, wilfully neglected, abandoned, abused or otherwise subjected the child to the conduct contemplated under Section 75.”

Father cannot be criminally held liable if he did not have any control over the child affairs

The Kerala High Court explained that mere non-payment of maintenance by a father, who is not shown to have actual charge of or control over the child, would not, by itself, attract Section 75 of the J.J. Act.

The Kerala High Court said: “The statutory ingredients of the offence cannot be expanded merely on the basis of the relationship between the accused (father) and the child.”

In the present case, the materials available on record, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the essential ingredient that he (father) was having actual charge of or control over the child at the relevant time.

The Kerala High Court said: “In the absence of such an essential ingredient, the prosecution under Section 75 of the J.J. Act cannot be sustained.”

Thus based on this discussion the Kerala High Court quasshed all proceedings against the father.