The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified a critical aspect of maintenance law under Section 125 of the CrPC, affirming that a daughter’s entitlement to maintenance continues for the entire duration of the proceedings, even if she attains majority during the pendency, provided the application was filed while she was a minor. This ruling reinforces the protective intent of the statute and rejects technical interpretations that undermine the welfare of dependent children.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from competing applications for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, 1973, filed by the wife and minor daughter against the husband, and reciprocally by the husband against the wife and daughter. The core issue is whether the wife and her daughter are entitled to maintenance despite the wife’s employment and the daughter’s subsequent attainment of majority during the pendency of the application.
Key Facts
- The marriage was solemnized on 23.01.2006 in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, as per Hindu rites.
- A daughter was born on 08.12.2007; a son was born on 14.04.2015.
- The daughter resides with the mother; the son resides with the father.
- The wife is employed as a primary teacher at C.M. Rise Excellent School, Sailana, Ratlam, with a net monthly salary of Rs. 52,833/- as per November 2024 salary slip.
- The husband is a qualified civil engineer engaged in private and government contracting work.
- The wife filed an application for maintenance on 14.03.2024, seeking Rs. 20,000/- per month for herself and daughter, citing insufficient income to cover rent, education, medical needs, and daily expenses.
- The husband opposed the application, claiming the wife earns Rs. 60,000 - 70,000/- per month and is financially independent, while he struggles to support his son.
- The husband did not produce any evidence regarding his income or expenses.
- The daughter passed her Higher Secondary Examination (Science, Biology) in the academic year 2024 - 25 and is preparing for the NEET examination at SAFAL Academy, Ratlam, incurring annual coaching fees of Rs. 60,000 - 70,000/-.
- The daughter attained the age of majority on 08.12.2025.
- The Family Court rejected the wife’s claim for maintenance on the ground that her salary was sufficient, and denied maintenance to the daughter on the basis that she had attained majority.
Procedural History
- 14.03.2024: Application for maintenance filed under Section 125 CrPC by wife and daughter before Family Court, Ratlam (MJCR/101/2024).
- 13.01.2025: Family Court ordered interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month for the daughter from the date of filing (14.03.2024).
- 20.08.2025: Family Court rejected the wife’s claim for maintenance and dismissed the daughter’s claim on grounds of her majority and lack of proof of educational expenses.
- 22.10.2025: Criminal Revision No. 5558/2025 filed by wife and daughter before the High Court challenging the rejection of maintenance.
- 15.11.2025: Criminal Revision No. 608/2025 filed by husband challenging the interim maintenance order for the daughter.
- 07.01.2026: Both revisions heard together and reserved.
- 01.04.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners (Wife and Daughter)
- The wife’s salary, though sufficient for personal upkeep, is inadequate to cover rent (Rs. 6,500/-), transport (Rs. 100/day), and the daughter’s NEET coaching (Rs. 60,000 - 70,000/year).
- Section 125 CrPC does not disqualify an employed wife from maintenance; the test is whether income is sufficient for a reasonable and dignified standard of living.
- The daughter’s educational expenses are essential and constitute a legitimate claim under Section 125.
- The husband’s failure to produce evidence of his income or expenses undermines his opposition.
- The daughter was a minor when the application was filed; her subsequent majority does not extinguish her right to maintenance for the period of pendency.
For the Respondent (Husband)
- The wife earns Rs. 60,000 - 70,000/- per month and is capable of maintaining herself and daughter.
- The daughter has attained majority and is no longer entitled to maintenance.
- The wife deserted the husband and is living separately without justification.
- The husband is bearing the expenses of the son and cannot afford additional obligations.
- No documentary proof was submitted to substantiate the daughter’s coaching expenses.
Relief Sought
- The wife and daughter seek reversal of the Family Court’s order dated 20.08.2025 and grant of maintenance at Rs. 20,000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 15,000/- per month for the daughter from 14.03.2024.
- The husband seeks setting aside of the interim maintenance order of Rs. 6,000/- per month for the daughter.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a daughter, who was a minor at the time of filing an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, remains entitled to maintenance for the entire period of pendency, including after attaining majority, and whether educational expenses for NEET preparation constitute a valid claim under the provision.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the settled principle that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision designed to prevent destitution. They cited Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation to argue that the right to maintenance is not forfeited merely because the applicant is employed. The daughter’s NEET coaching expenses were presented as sworn testimony under oath, which, under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, constitutes sufficient evidence. The husband’s failure to produce any income proof or rebuttal evidence rendered his assertions unsubstantiated.
For the Respondent/State
The husband contended that the wife’s income exceeds the cost of living in Ratlam and that the daughter, having turned 18, is no longer a minor under the law. He argued that maintenance under Section 125 is limited to basic sustenance and does not extend to competitive exam coaching. He further asserted that the wife’s desertion disentitles her to relief.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a purposive interpretation of Section 125 CrPC, emphasizing its humanitarian and protective character. It held that the statute’s objective is to ensure that dependents are not left destitute, regardless of the applicant’s employment status.
"The fact that the wife is employed does not ipso facto disentitle her to maintenance. The question is whether her income is sufficient to maintain herself and her dependent child in a reasonable and dignified manner."
The Court rejected the Family Court’s mechanical application of the majority rule. It held that when an application for maintenance is filed during minority, the right to maintenance accrues from the date of filing and continues for the duration of the proceedings, even if the child attains majority during that period. The Court relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Rajesh Kumar v. Sunita, which recognize that the right to maintenance is not extinguished by the passage of time or attainment of majority if the claim was validly initiated during minority.
Regarding educational expenses, the Court held that the daughter’s sworn testimony regarding her NEET coaching, including the name of the institute and annual fees, was sufficient evidence under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act. The husband’s failure to cross-examine or rebut this testimony rendered his objections legally unsustainable.
The Court further noted that the husband, a qualified civil engineer engaged in both private and government contracts, had the means to pay maintenance but chose not to produce any evidence of his income or expenses. This failure to discharge the burden of proof weighed heavily against him.
The Verdict
The wife’s claim for maintenance was dismissed as her income was found sufficient for her own upkeep. However, the daughter’s claim was allowed in part. The Court directed the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month for the period from 14.03.2024 to 08.12.2025 (21 months), totaling Rs. 3,15,000/-. The interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month already paid by the husband shall be adjusted against this amount. The husband’s revision petition challenging the interim order was dismissed. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Maintenance Entitlement Extends Beyond Majority During Pendency
- Practitioners must argue that Section 125 CrPC protects dependents from the date of application, not merely at the date of hearing.
- Courts must calculate maintenance for the entire period of pendency if the child was a minor at filing, even if majority is attained later.
- Failure to apply this principle violates the statute’s protective intent.
Educational Expenses Are Legitimate Under Section 125
- Coaching for competitive exams like NEET, JEE, or CLAT qualifies as necessary expenditure for a child’s future.
- Sworn testimony regarding fees, institute name, and course duration is sufficient evidence absent contradiction.
- Courts must not impose an undue burden of documentary proof for reasonable educational claims.
Burden of Proof Lies Heavily on the Respondent
- When the applicant provides credible testimony, the respondent must rebut it with evidence.
- Silence or unsubstantiated denials cannot override sworn statements.
- Courts must draw adverse inferences against respondents who fail to produce income records.
