Allahabad High Court Rules Maintenance Claims Against Minors Are Maintainable

In a case involving a child marriage, where the wife does not want to live with the husband after few years of marriage, the Allahabad High Court held that the wife's maintenance application is maintainable under Section 125 and Section 128 of the Cr.P.C. – Code of Criminal Procedure. 

Justice Madan Pal Singh in the order dated, September 25, 2025, held, "It is no doubt true that at the time of filing of instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. February 10, 2019 the revisionist was minor but at the time of passing of the impugned judgment i.e. November 22, 2023 he attained the age of majority i.e. approximately 20 years old. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that before the date of attaining the age of majority, i.e., when he was a minor, it was not obligatory upon him to maintain his legally wedded wife and real minor daughter. Still, just after attaining the age of majority, he will become liable not only to maintain himself, but it is legally obligatory upon him to maintain his wife and minor daughter."

Here is how the matter started. The husband was a minor when the marriage was solemnized in July, 2016. The husband was about 13 years old at the time of marriage. From the wedlock, their daughter was born in September, 2018. In February 2019, the wife filed an application for maintenance on her and her daughter's behalf under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The husband, then 16 years old, was still a minor, per his high school marksheet.

Arguments

The husband's counsel argued that the husband was a minor when the maintenance application was filed. Also, the wife refused to live with him without any sufficient cause, so she is not entitled to the maintenance. The counsel further argued that the husband, being a student, is dependent on his parents and has no source of income. The counsel added that the trial court ordered him to pay maintenance without considering his income.

The wife's side counsel said that the husband was not a minor but an adult of 25 years old in 2019, when the maintenance application was filed. As a husband, he cannot "shirk upon his pious responsibility to maintain his wife and daughter", the counsel argued and said that the Rs 9,000 monthly maintenance ordered in the impugned order is reasonable and justifiable because husband lives in the joint Hindu family, which has 55 bigah agricultural land, one XYLO car, and a tractor in the name of his father. So, the monthly allowance is not unrealistic for them. The counsel requested the Court to dismiss the present criminal revision of the case.

Court Observations

The Court referred to Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It explained that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., if a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, the wife who cannot keep herself or the minor child can move for a maintenance application. 

It also said, "It has nowhere mentioned that proceedings under Sections 125 and 128 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated against a minor but can be initiated through his guardian."

The Court noted that the trial court's observation that the wife was subjected to harassment and cruelty due to dowry demand, while the husband has also admitted to having taken dowry in the marriage. 

The Court also noted that the High School certificate of the husband was not produced before the trial court, but was filed before the High Court. It, however, held that the husband was a minor on the date of the application, but was a major (around 20 years old) on the date of passing the impugned judgment in November 2023.

Court Order

The Court said, "When he (husband) was minor, it was not obligatory upon him to maintain his legally wedded wife and real minor daughter, but just after attaining the age of majority, he will become liable not only to maintain himself but it is legally obligatory upon him to maintain his wife and minor daughter."

Further, to avoid pendency, the Court settled the matter instead of sending it back to the trial court. Observing that there is nothing on record to ascertain the husband's income, and considering him as a labourer, worked out his income to be Rs 18,000 per month (Rs 600 per day * 30 days). Considering this income, the maintenance was reduced from Rs 9,000 per month to Rs 4,500 per month (Rs 2,000 for the wife and Rs 2,500 for the minor daughter), and directed to calculate the arrears as fixed by the High Court.