Court affirms entitlement to maintenance for daughter post-majority application and dismisses wife's claim due to sufficient income.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered a significant judgment on April 1, 2026, in the case of Smt. Abhida v. Ajay, addressing crucial issues surrounding maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The court was presided over by Justice Gajendra Singh, who analogously heard two criminal revisions to resolve maintenance disputes involving a wife and minor daughter against their estranged husband and father.
In the first case, Criminal Revision No. 5558 of 2025, Smt. Abhida, the wife, and her minor daughter contested the Family Court's decision rejecting their maintenance claim. The Family Court had denied the wife maintenance on the basis that her monthly salary of Rs. 62,000 as a teacher was deemed sufficient for self-support. However, the High Court upheld this decision, noting that her salary allowed her to maintain a dignified life and hence required no interference.
The more contentious issue revolved around the maintenance for the daughter, who had filed for support during her minority but reached adulthood during the proceedings. Justice Singh clarified that the daughter was entitled to maintenance until she attained majority, and the application filed during her minority could not be dismissed merely because she turned 18 during the case. The court emphasized that educational expenses should be considered a part of maintenance, especially since the daughter was preparing for competitive exams and incurred significant coaching fees.
The court awarded the daughter maintenance at a rate of Rs. 15,000 per month from April 2024 to December 2025, totaling 21 months. The ruling underscored the father's obligation to support his daughter's educational aspirations, noting that his status as a civil engineer indicated an ability to do so.
In a separate but related matter, Criminal Revision No. 608 of 2025, the father had challenged the interim maintenance awarded to the daughter. This petition was dismissed, with the court affirming that mere unemployment did not absolve the father of his responsibility.
This judgment reinforces the legal principle that maintenance applications filed during minority cannot be dismissed if the child reaches majority during the proceedings. It also highlights the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that educational needs are met as part of maintenance obligations.
Bottom Line:
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - A minor daughter is entitled to maintenance until she attains majority, and if the maintenance application is filed during her minority, she cannot be denied maintenance even if she attains majority during the pendency of proceedings. Educational expenses of a dependent child must also be considered for maintenance.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Smt. Abhida v. Ajay, (Madhya Pradesh)(Indore) : Law Finder Doc id # 2878071
