Court Seeks Explanation on Legality of Maintenance to Capable Adult Son
In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court has sought an explanation from the Additional Principal Judge of the Family Court in Bulandshahr regarding a maintenance order directing Rajeev Shishodiya to pay Rs. 60,000 per month to his adult son until his marriage or until he becomes capable of earning. The court's directive came in response to a criminal revision petition filed by Shishodiya challenging the Family Court's decision.
The case, presided over by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, revolves around the interpretation of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), 1973, which governs maintenance orders. The court highlighted that Section 125(1)(c) Cr.P.C. allows maintenance for a legitimate or illegitimate child who has attained majority only if the child is unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormalities.
Shishodiya's counsel argued that his son, Aditya Kumar Singh, had already attained majority, turning 18 in June 2022, and was not physically or mentally disabled, hence not entitled to maintenance under the current legal framework. The court noted that the Indian Majority Act, 1875, stipulates that individuals domiciled in India attain majority at 18 years of age.
The judgment also referenced past Supreme Court rulings, including "Abhilasha v. Prakash" and "Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim," which clarified that while daughters may claim maintenance until marriage, sons are not similarly entitled unless they are unable to maintain themselves due to specific disabilities.
Justice Giri has directed Ms. Neetu Yadav, the Additional Principal Judge, to submit an explanation within 15 days detailing the legal basis for the maintenance order. Furthermore, notices have been issued to the opposite parties, including Shishodiya's son and wife, to file their counter-affidavits.
The case has been listed for further hearing on August 4, 2026. The court has emphasized the need for clarity on the provisions of law applied in this case, highlighting a potential misinterpretation of the maintenance laws concerning adult male children.
Bottom line:-
Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not provide maintenance to male children who have attained majority unless they are physically or mentally disabled.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Indian Majority Act, 1875
Rajeev Shishodiya v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2947403
