Court Upholds Legal Restrictions on Maintenance for Adult Children Without Disabilities
In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Smti. Boby Das seeking maintenance for her son beyond his attainment of majority. The court upheld the statutory provisions under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which limit maintenance to children only until they reach the age of majority unless they suffer from a physical or mental abnormality or injury that prevents self-maintenance.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, came in response to the petitioner’s appeal against an earlier order from the Principal Judge Family Court-I, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati. The initial order had granted maintenance for Boby Das and her three children but ceased maintenance for her son once he attained the age of 18, despite him pursuing his graduation.
Counsel for the petitioner, Dr. N. Deka, argued that the son required financial support for his ongoing education. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Chandrashekar v. Swapnil, where maintenance was extended under Article 142 of the Constitution for educational expenses, the petitioner sought similar relief. However, Justice Sharma clarified that such powers under Article 142 are exclusive to the Supreme Court and cannot be exercised by High Courts.
The judgment emphasized that clause (b) of Section 125(1) Cr.PC mandates maintenance only until a child attains majority, unless clause (c) applies due to physical or mental disabilities. The court noted that legislative intent is clear in restricting maintenance post-majority unless specific conditions are met.
The court also referenced the Delhi High Court’s decision in Urvashi Agarwal v. Indarpal Agarwal, which suggested ongoing parental responsibility for educational expenses. Despite this, Justice Sharma reiterated that the High Court must adhere to statutory limitations and cannot contravene established law to advance the statute’s objective of preventing destitution.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the petitioner’s son, having attained majority in 2021, does not qualify for extended maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.PC. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, affirming the earlier decision to cease maintenance beyond the age of 18.
Bottom Line:
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC - Maintenance beyond the age of majority cannot be granted by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the child suffers from physical or mental abnormality or injury preventing self-maintenance.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Smti. Boby Das v. Sri. Kantiram Das, (Gauhati) : Law Finder Doc id # 2878734
