The Gauhati High Court has firmly reaffirmed the statutory limits on maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, holding that adult children pursuing higher education are not entitled to maintenance unless they suffer a physical or mental disability. This ruling clarifies the boundaries of judicial discretion in family maintenance matters and reinforces legislative intent over equitable extensions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The revision petitioner, Smti. Bobby Das, wife of Sri Kantiram Das, sought maintenance for herself and her three children under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The marriage between the parties was solemnized in January 1997 under Hindu rites, and three children were born of the union. The respondent, the husband, alleged an extramarital affair by the petitioner in 2013 and filed a civil divorce petition (F.C. (Civil) Case No. 741/2013), which he later withdrew in 2016. In exchange, the petitioner withdrew her domestic violence case (C.R. (D.V.) Case No. 16/2014) on the respondent’s promise to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000. This payment ceased, prompting the petitioner to file a criminal maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC (F.C. (Criminal) Case No. 462/2017).
Key Facts
- The petitioner and respondent have three children, born between 1997 and 2005
- The youngest son, the subject of the revision, attained majority in the year 2021
- The son is currently pursuing undergraduate studies
- The Family Court granted maintenance to the petitioner and her two minor children
- The Family Court denied maintenance to the son beyond the age of 18, citing statutory limits
- The petitioner seeks extension of maintenance for the son until completion of graduation or commencement of employment, whichever is earlier
- The petitioner also seeks enhancement of monthly maintenance from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 15,000
Procedural History
- January 1997: Marriage solemnized under Hindu rites
- 2013: Respondent files civil divorce petition (F.C. (Civil) Case No. 741/2013)
- 2014: Petitioner files domestic violence case (C.R. (D.V.) Case No. 16/2014)
- 2016: Both civil divorce and domestic violence cases withdrawn on mutual understanding
- 2017: Petitioner files maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC (F.C. (Criminal) Case No. 462/2017)
- 26.05.2025: Family Court, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, passes order granting maintenance to petitioner and two minor children, but denies maintenance to the son after attainment of majority in 2021
- 06.04.2026: Criminal Revision Petition filed before the Gauhati High Court (Crl.Rev.P./234/2025)
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks:
- Extension of maintenance for the son beyond the age of 18 until completion of graduation or commencement of employment, whichever is earlier
- Enhancement of monthly maintenance amount from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 15,000
- Continuation of maintenance for herself and minor children at enhanced rate
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 125(1)(b) of the CrPC permits a court to grant maintenance to a child who has attained majority and is pursuing higher education, absent any physical or mental disability, and whether the High Court may extend such maintenance in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Chandrashekar v. Swapnil (2021) 12 SCC 624, where the Supreme Court, exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed maintenance for a child beyond majority until completion of his first-degree course. He also cited Urvashi Agarwal v. Indarpal Agarwal (Manu/DE/1091/2021), where the Delhi High Court held that it is unreasonable to expect the mother alone to bear the burden of an adult child’s education expenses in the face of rising costs. He argued that the object of Section 125 is to prevent destitution and that denying maintenance to a student child effectively renders him destitute.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel contended that Section 125(1)(b) explicitly limits maintenance to minor children. Clause (c) permits maintenance for adult children only if they are unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormality or injury. The son, being a healthy adult pursuing education, does not fall within this exception. He emphasized that the Supreme Court’s decision in Chandrashekar was an extraordinary exercise of Article 142 power and cannot be replicated by a High Court in revisional jurisdiction. The legislature, he argued, deliberately excluded adult children from maintenance unless disabled.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed textual analysis of Section 125(1) CrPC, distinguishing between clauses (b) and (c). Clause (b) provides for maintenance of minor children, while clause (c) permits maintenance for adult children only if they are unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormality or injury. The Court noted that the legislature, by omitting any reference to education or dependency in clause (c), has clearly confined the scope of post-majority maintenance to cases of incapacity.
"The intent of the legislature while enacting Section 125(1) CrPC is quite clear in that the benefit of the said section has been expressly restricted till attainment of the age of majority by the child."
The Court rejected the reliance on Chandrashekar, observing that the Supreme Court’s direction was issued under its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which empower it to do complete justice. The High Court, however, lacks such plenary powers in revisional jurisdiction. The Court held that even if the object of the statute is to prevent destitution, the High Court cannot override a clear statutory limitation by judicial innovation.
The Court further noted that the son had attained majority in 2021, over five years prior to the hearing. The petitioner had not alleged any physical or mental disability. The Court emphasized that judicial discretion must operate within the boundaries of statutory text, and extending maintenance to a healthy adult student would amount to judicial legislation.
The Verdict
The criminal revision petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the Family Court’s order denying maintenance to the son beyond the age of 18. The monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000 for the petitioner and her two minor children was confirmed. No enhancement of maintenance was granted. The Court held that the son, being a healthy adult without physical or mental disability, is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Maintenance Beyond Majority Requires Disability
- Practitioners must now establish a physical or mental disability under Section 125(1)(c) to claim maintenance for adult children
- Educational dependency alone, however compelling, is insufficient to invoke Section 125
- Applications seeking maintenance for college-going children must be framed under civil law or as part of divorce proceedings, not under CrPC
High Courts Cannot Extend Maintenance via Revision
- Revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent statutory limits
- Decisions like Chandrashekar are confined to the Supreme Court’s Article 142 powers
- Lower courts and High Courts must strictly adhere to the text of Section 125
Strategic Shift in Maintenance Litigation
- Petitioners seeking support for adult children should consider filing civil suits for maintenance under personal law or the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
- In divorce cases, maintenance for education can be negotiated as part of settlement or ordered under Section 24 or 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act
- Section 125 CrPC remains a narrow remedy for destitution, not a tool for educational funding
