Attainment Of Age Of Majority Will Not Result In Cessation Of Right To Receive Maintenance For Disabled Child: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court was considering a criminal revision challenging the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chhattisgarh High Court
While partly allowing a criminal revision against an order of the Family Court, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the mere attainment of the age of majority cannot, by itself, be treated as a circumstance resulting in the automatic cessation of the right to receive maintenance in the case of a child who is suffering from a physical or mental abnormality or disability and is unable to maintain himself.
The High Court was considering a criminal revision preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, being partially aggrieved by the order of the Family Court whereby the application preferred by the applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was partly allowed and the father (non-applicant) was directed to pay maintenance of Rs 7,000 per month to the applicant till the applicant attained the age of majority.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha held, “The mere attainment of the age of majority cannot, by itself, be treated as a circumstance resulting in the automatic cessation of the right to receive maintenance in the case of a child who is suffering from a physical or mental abnormality or disability and is unable to maintain himself. The relevant consideration would be whether, after attaining majority, such person is capable of maintaining himself and earning his livelihood. In other words, the age of the applicant cannot be the sole determining factor for discontinuance of maintenance, particularly when his entitlement is required to be examined in the light of his physical and mental condition and his capacity to maintain himself.”
Advocate Amit Kumar Chaki represented the Applicant while Advocate Purnendra Khichariya represented the Non-Applicant.
Factual Background
The marriage between the non-applicant (father) and the mother of the applicant was solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and rituals prevailing in the Hindu community. Out of the said wedlock, the applicant was born on May 11, 2012. Due to matrimonial discord between the parents of the applicant, the mother of the applicant left her matrimonial home and had been residing separately along with the applicant since May 25, 2015. It was further the case of the applicant that the father was addicted to excessive consumption of liquor and, when the applicant was about one year old, the non-applicant allegedly poured liquor into the mouth of the applicant on several occasions, resulting in serious physical consequences affecting his speech.
It was alleged that despite medical treatment and intervention, the applicant continued to suffer from Speech Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder. It was stated that the applicant required specialized education, continuous care and medical attention. It was in such circumstances that an application was filed under Section 125 of the CrPC for the grant of monthly maintenance of Rs 30,000 from the non-applicant. Being partially aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant preferred the present criminal revision on the ground that considering the applicant’s Autism Spectrum Disorder and Speech Disorder, the Family Court ought not to have restricted the payment of maintenance only till the applicant attained the age of majority. It was also claimed that the maintenance amount of Rs 7,000 per month was inadequate.
Reasoning
Observing that the determination of maintenance is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case, including the needs of the claimant and the financial capacity of the person liable to maintain him, the Bench did not find any patent illegality or perversity in the determination of the quantum of maintenance by the Family Court to warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction. “Accordingly, the prayer of the applicant for enhancement of the maintenance amount is not liable to be accepted”, it held.
The Bench, however, found substance in the grievance of the applicant with regard to the restriction imposed by the Family Court that the maintenance should be payable only till he attains the age of majority. Taking note of the disability certificate and other material indicating that he is suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder and Speech Disorder, the Bench stated that the same indicated that the applicant may require continued care, assistance and support even after attaining the age of majority.
“Whether the applicant, upon attaining majority, would continue to remain unable to maintain himself on account of his mental condition is a matter which has to be considered on the basis of the circumstances and evidence available at the relevant point of time”, it added.
The Bench thus partly allowed the criminal revision and modified the impugned order to the limited extent by setting aside the direction restricting the payment of maintenance of Rs 7,000 per month only till the applicant attains the age of majority.
“The non-applicant shall continue to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month towards maintenance to the applicant, as awarded by the learned Family Court, even after the applicant attains the age of majority, unless and until it is established before the learned Family Court, on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence, that the applicant has become capable of maintaining himself and earning his livelihood”, it ordered.
Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:37889)