Court says father’s duty does not end automatically when a child turns 18 if the child remains unable to maintain himself due to severe disability; mother can continue proceedings as natural caretaker.
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a criminal revision filed by a husband challenging maintenance proceedings initiated on behalf of his major son, who suffers from 70% to 75% physical disability. The Court held that a father’s legal obligation to maintain a child does not automatically cease when the child attains majority, if the child is still unable to maintain himself because of a physical or mental abnormality or injury.
Justice Uday Kumar was hearing the revision petition filed by Samit Pramanick against two interlocutory orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate at Ranaghat, Nadia, in a long-running maintenance dispute dating back to 2005. The wife had originally sought maintenance for herself and her minor son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). While the wife’s claim was rejected on the ground that her marriage with the petitioner was void due to his earlier subsisting marriage, the trial court had allowed maintenance for the child and directed payment of Rs. 3,000 per month.
After the son attained majority, the mother moved the court under Section 127 CrPC seeking continuation of maintenance, arguing that the son remained severely disabled and incapable of self-support. The husband opposed the plea, contending that once the son became an adult, the mother lost locus standi to represent him and that a fresh proceeding would be required. He also relied on Supreme Court rulings in Rajnesh v. Neha and Aditi alias Mithi to argue that affidavits of assets and liabilities were mandatory.
The High Court rejected these objections. It observed that the statutory scheme of Section 125(1)(c) CrPC specifically protects a major child who cannot maintain himself due to physical or mental abnormality. The Court said the transition from minority to majority, when accompanied by continuing disability, amounts to a change in circumstances that can be addressed under Section 127 CrPC. It further noted that the son’s completion of higher secondary education, enrolment in an ITI course, or ability to walk independently does not prove financial independence or employability.
On the issue of locus standi, the Court held that the mother, acting as a natural caretaker and next friend, was competent to pursue the maintenance claim on behalf of her disabled adult son. The Court described the objection as “procedural pedantry” and emphasized access to justice for persons with severe disabilities.
The Court also held that the asset and liability affidavit requirements laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha were not applicable in this case in a manner that would invalidate the proceedings. Since the maintenance amount had already been fixed in earlier proceedings and the Section 127 application was only for continuation of an existing entitlement, the Court said the absence of such affidavits did not vitiate the interlocutory orders.
Finding no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s orders, the High Court dismissed the revision petition. It also affirmed the trial court’s direction imposing nominal costs on the husband for filing repetitive and unverified applications on issues already decided. The Court further directed the trial court to expedite the pending execution proceedings and ensure compliance with the maintenance order and arrears.
Bottom Line :
Cr.P.C. Sections 125(1)(c) and 127 - Father's liability to maintain a major son suffering from 70% to 75% physical disability does not automatically cease on attaining majority - Mother as natural caretaker can maintain proceedings on behalf of such disabled adult son - Non-filing of asset and liability affidavit under Rajnesh v. Neha and Aditi alias Mithi does not vitiate interlocutory maintainability orders in continuation proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C. relating to a pre-existing maintenance order.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125(1)(c) CrPC, Section 127 CrPC, Section 397 CrPC, Section 401 CrPC, Section 482 CrPC, Section 407 CrPC
Samit Pramanick v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2982690
