Case at a Glance
A father who had been paying Rs 3,000 a month as maintenance for his son since 2012 argued that the allowance ended when the son became an adult, and that the mother had no standing to seek its continuation. The son has a 70–75% orthopaedic disability. Justice Uday Kumar held that under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC a father must maintain a major child who cannot maintain himself because of physical or mental abnormality, that the move to majority with continuing disability is a ‘change in circumstances’ under Section 127, and that an ITI course does not prove self-sufficiency. The father’s revision was dismissed and the trial court told to expedite execution of arrears.
In 2005, the mother filed a maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC for herself and her minor son, born in November 2001. On 6 July 2012, the trial court rejected her own claim because her marriage to the petitioner was found void (he had a subsisting earlier marriage), but awarded the son Rs 3,000 a month. The father’s challenge to that order was dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court on 22 November 2016 in CRR No. 77 of 2014.
After the son turned 18, the mother filed Misc. Case No. 388 of 2018 under Section 127 CrPC seeking continuation and modification of the allowance, citing his 70–75% orthopaedic disability. The father objected that the son was now an adult who had passed Higher Secondary, completed an ITI course and could move independently, and that the mother had no locus standi. The Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Ranaghat, Nadia rejected his objections by orders dated 31 March 2022 and 10 January 2023 and imposed Rs 500 costs for dilatory conduct. The father filed a revision before the High Court.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does a father’s duty to pay maintenance end automatically when his son turns 18, even though the son has a severe disability and cannot maintain himself?
The duty lasts as long as the incapacity lasts
The Court read Section 125(1)(c) CrPC, which covers a major child (other than a married daughter) who is unable to maintain himself because of physical or mental abnormality or injury, and held that “The obligation is dynamically tied to the continuation of the incapacity.” The son’s transition to majority, together with his continuing disability, was a change in circumstances because “Section 127 Cr.P.C. explicitly empowers the Magistrate to alter an allowance upon proof of a change in circumstances.” A parent may pursue the claim as next friend of a disabled adult child, who “cannot be cast out of the portals of justice on procedural pedantry.” Vocational training, the Court said, is not the same as employability, and any cancellation “requires concrete, substantive proof of actual financial self-sufficiency and gainful employment.”
The father also relied on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2020) 11 SC CK 0009, (2021) 2 SCC 324, and Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma, (2024) 14 SCC 355, arguing that the absence of an affidavit of assets vitiated the proceedings. The Court held those directions are aimed at fresh quantum assessments in contested matters, whereas here “the quantum was statically pegged at Rs. 3,000 per month as far back as 2012,” so a mechanical affidavit drill was unnecessary. Noting the repeated objections already rejected, it described the revision as “a textbook instance of abuse of the judicial process.”
What the Court Actually Held
- A father’s duty under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC to maintain a child who cannot maintain himself due to physical or mental abnormality does not end at majority; it continues as long as the incapacity continues.
- Attaining majority while the disability continues is a ‘change in circumstances’ allowing the allowance to be continued or altered under Section 127; the mother can pursue the claim for her disabled adult son.
- An ITI course or certificate is not proof of self-sufficiency; cancellation needs concrete proof of gainful employment, and the Rajnesh asset-affidavit requirement did not vitiate this static Section 127 proceeding.
- The revision was dismissed, the magistrate’s orders of 31 March 2022 and 10 January 2023 affirmed, interim orders vacated, and the trial court directed to expedite execution of arrears and record evidence without unwarranted adjournments to the husband.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It protects adult children with disabilities who depend on maintenance after turning 18.
- It clarifies that a mother or close relative can pursue the claim on behalf of a disabled adult child.
- It limits the use of Rajnesh v. Neha asset-affidavit objections to delay settled maintenance orders.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Parents and Caregivers
- If your child has a disability and cannot maintain himself, maintenance can continue after 18 under Section 125(1)(c).
- Keep the disability certificate and evidence of the child’s inability to earn on record.
- Seek continuation through a Section 127 application when the child reaches majority.
For Counsel
- Frame majority plus continuing disability as a ‘change in circumstances’ under Section 127.
- Distinguish Rajnesh and Aditi where quantum was fixed long ago and is not being reassessed.
- To seek cancellation, lead concrete evidence of actual employment and income, not training certificates.
Key Takeaways
- Maintenance for a disabled child need not stop at 18.
- The duty continues as long as the child cannot maintain himself because of the disability.
- Vocational training is not proof of self-sufficiency.
- Repeated objections already rejected can be treated as abuse of process.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a father have to pay maintenance after his child turns 18?
Generally maintenance for a son ends at majority, but under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) a major child who cannot maintain himself because of physical or mental abnormality or injury remains entitled. This judgment holds that duty continues as long as the incapacity does.
Can the mother file the case for an adult disabled son?
Yes. The Court held a parent or close relative may act as next friend for a disabled adult child, and rejected the father’s locus standi objection.
Is an affidavit of assets under Rajnesh v. Neha always required?
The Court held that in this Section 127 proceeding, where the amount had been fixed in 2012 and upheld in 2016, the absence of an asset affidavit did not vitiate the proceedings.
Conclusion
The judgment treats maintenance as a continuing obligation tied to need, not a fixed term that ends at 18. For families caring for adult children with disabilities, it confirms that the law looks at the child’s actual ability to earn, not at age or certificates.
Practical takeaway: When a disabled child turns 18, move under Section 127 for continuation with medical and disability evidence; the payer must prove real self-sufficiency to stop paying.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com