NEW DELHI: The Bombay high court has upheld a family court order directing a father to pay maintenance of Rs 7,000 each to his unmarried daughter and son, ruling that the daughter could continue to receive maintenance even after attaining the majority. The court also said the father could seek a change in the maintenance payable to his son before the appropriate forum.In its October 13, 2026, order, the Nagpur bench of the high court dismissed the father’s challenge to the family court, Nagpur’s December 7, 2019, order.
Why did the father challenge the maintenance order?
According to the court order, the family court had directed the father, a teacher earning Rs 71,000 a month, to pay Rs 7,000 each to his two children. It denied maintenance to his wife, who was also a teacher and earned Rs 40,000 a month.The father argued that both the children had attained majority and were no longer entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). He then argued that he had to maintain his elderly parents also.He further contended that his unmarried daughter, who was 23 when he filed the revision petition, should seek maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), rather than under Section 125 of the CrPC.The father also challenged maintenance for his son, who attained majority while the revision petition was pending.The wife and children opposed the petition, arguing that the daughter should not be forced to start fresh proceedings after years of litigation. They also submitted that the son was a minor when the family court passed its order and remained unable to maintain himself.
Why did the high court uphold maintenance for the children?
Justice Mehroz K Pathan noted that the son was a minor when the family court passed its order in 2019. His subsequent attainment of majority did not make the original order incorrect.On the daughter’s claim, the court held that the availability of another legal remedy under the HAMA did not automatically prevent her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, particularly when the father had failed to show that she could maintain herself.The court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jagdish Jugtawat v Manju Lata, which upheld maintenance for an unmarried daughter after she attained majority. The Supreme Court had observed:“The right of a minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized in Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,” the court noted.The high court said that the family court had committed no error in granting maintenance to the unmarried daughter, taking into account the legal position recognised by the Supreme Court.“In so far as the grievance of the applicant that the non-applicant no.3 has attained majority during the pendency of the present application can be very well raised in an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. to be filed before the appropriate forum,” the court added.Section 127 of the CrPC provides for altering a maintenance order when circumstances change. The court thus left it open to the father to raise the issue before the appropriate forum.The high court also referred to a Delhi high court ruling concerning an adult son who was still studying and unable to support himself.“It cannot be said that the obligation of a father would come to an end and when his son reaches 18 years of age and the entire burden of his education and other expenses would fall only on the mother……,” the high court further added.The court then held that the family court’s direction to pay Rs 7,000 each to the two children was not erroneous. It dismissed the father’s revision petition, leaving the maintenance order undisturbed.