In a significant judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court recently ruled that a father is legally obliged to provide financial support for the education of his adult son and daughter. The decision came after a daughter and son approached the court, seeking an order directing their father to fund her PhD programme and his BTech degree, respectively.
The daughter’s date of birth is August 1, 1998, and the son’s is March 17, 2002. They attained the age of majority on August 1, 2016, and March 17, 2020, respectively.
Both the son and daughter in the petition submitted that financial constraints could adversely impact and disrupt their studies. Considering her children’s situation, their mother, along with them, filed a case against their father/husband for the grant of maintenance allowance before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. On July 9, 2012, the First Class Judicial Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs 2,000 per month to each of them (the mother, son, and daughter).
In the revision petition filed by them against the aforementioned order of the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Additional Sessions Judge-II, vide order dated March 20, 2015, enhanced maintenance from Rs 2,000 to Rs 3,000 per month. Subsequently, the aforesaid maintenance allowance was enhanced to Rs 4,000 per month in Lok Adalat on July 22, 2017.
On July 2, 2018, the mother, son, and daughter filed a petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking a further increase in maintenance allowance. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, allowed the enhancement from Rs 4,000 to Rs 8,000 per month with respect to proforma respondent No. 2 (mother). However, the claim of enhancement of maintenance for the petitioners (son and daughter) was dismissed on the ground that they have reached the age of majority.
The mother and her children subsequently filed an appeal against this order in the Himachal Pradesh High Court. On September 12, 2025, they partly won the case.
Also read: Teacher arrested on ground of moral turpitude and compulsorily retired, will get pension and gratuity benefits for this reason, rules Jharkhand High Court
Kritika Seth, Founding Partner, The Victoriam Legalis, said to ET Wealth Online: "The present case (2025:HHC:31444), heard before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, sets a significant precedent with respect to the scope of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956."
Seth says that the cornerstone of the dispute was the entitlement to continued or enhanced maintenance for individuals who have attained majority but are pursuing higher education and do not possess the financial means to maintain themselves.
Seth says that the Family Court in this case had already dismissed the application of the respondents’ children for enhancement of maintenance, taking into account the fact that they were no longer minors. The Himachal Pradesh High Court partially upheld this order and ruled that under Section 125 of the CrPC, a father’s duty to maintain children ends when they reach the age of 18.
Seth explains that the exception applies only to those individuals who have attained majority but suffer from any physical or mental abnormality or injury as a result of which they are unable to maintain themselves. Therefore, it was held that the daughter, who was not a minor at the time of filing the application, was not eligible for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
Additionally, the Court also held that considering the fact that the son had not attained majority when the application was filed, he was entitled to enhanced maintenance, but only until the date he turned 18.
Seth says that this judgment thus also highlighted that under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 an unmarried daughter, unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or property, is entitled to maintenance from her father, irrespective of her age. Therefore, the Hon’ble Court further held that although the father may not be bound by law to maintain his children under the CrPC, it is his moral obligation to support them financially since the children are still pursuing education.
Also read: Govt deducted Rs 9.23 lakh from pension of late employee; employees' legal heirs fight back, win the case in Chhattisgarh High Court
Analysis by the Himachal Pradesh High Court
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in the order (2025:HHC:31444) dated September 12, 2025, said that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and corresponding Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita provide the provisions with respect to the entitlement of a wife and children for maintenance if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain:
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself;
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself; and
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said: “From the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that a child (legitimate or illegitimate) is entitled to maintenance from the father before attaining the age of majority, and after attaining such majority, only that child (legitimate or illegitimate) shall be entitled to maintenance who, because of physical or mental abnormality or injury, is unable to maintain itself.”
However, in this present case, the petitioners are legitimate children of respondent No.1 (husband) and proforma respondent No.2 (wife). They are not suffering any physical or mental abnormality or injury so as to render them incapable of maintaining.
Also read: She filed criminal cases solely with the intention of harassing her husband, says Andhra Pradesh High Court and quashes Section 498A case
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that thus, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., petitioners were legally entitled to maintenance until attaining the age of majority. Therefore, petitioner No.1 (daughter) was entitled to maintenance from her father under Section 125 Cr.P.C. till August 1, 2016, whereas petitioner No.2 (son) was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. till March 17, 2020.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that when the application for enhancement was filed on July 2, 2018, petitioner No. 1 (daughter) had already reached the age of majority. However, petitioner No. 2 (son) was a minor till March 17, 2020. The Family Court, considering the index of prices for essential commodities, the salary of respondent No. 1 (father/husband), and other circumstances, has increased the maintenance of proforma respondent No. 2 (mother/wife) from Rs 4,000 to Rs 8,000 per month.
Also read: Homebuyer was denied Rs 10 lakh capital gain tax exemption by Income Tax dept for not depositing unutilised land sale gains in CGAS on time, he wins case in ITAT Chennai
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said: “No challenge has been laid to this enhancement. Therefore, this enhancement has attained finality between the parties.”
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that this enhancement of maintenance has been made payable from the date of filing of the application i.e., July 2, 2018. However, the Family Court has failed to notice that though petitioner No. 1 (daughter) had attained majority on August 1, 2016, i.e., prior to the filing of the application for enhancement of maintenance, petitioner No. 2 (son) was a minor at that time who attained majority only on March 17, 2020.
Also read: Son applies for late father’s bank job on compassionate grounds, gets no response for years, files case, wins Rs 1 lakh, Allahabad High Court order
Being a minor till March 17, 2020, petitioner No. 2 (son) was entitled to the enhancement till March 17, 2020. Therefore, Family Court has committed a mistake by rejecting the claim of enhancement on behalf of petitioner No. 2 (son) in toto, instead from the date of attaining the age of majority.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said: “Petitioner No. 2 (son) is entitled to an enhanced amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs 8,000 from July 2, 2018, till March 17, 2020.”
The Himachal Pradesh High Court explains Hindu law
The Himachal Pradesh High Court says:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that though in Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a daughter shall be entitled to maintenance till attaining the age of majority, under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, an unmarried daughter, unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or property, is entitled to maintenance from her father, irrespective of her age. However, Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 of BNSS) does not have provisions for maintenance for a major daughter, even if she is unmarried.
Also read: Higher EPS pension can’t be denied to members retiring after September 1, 2014, once EPFO accepts higher wage contributions, Kerala High Court
Judgement of the Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that in case respondent No. 1 (husband) has paid maintenance to petitioners No. 1 and 2 (wife/mother and son) even after attaining the age of majority by them, even then, he shall not be entitled to recover the same or adjust it against maintenance payable to either the child or proforma respondent No. 2 (mother/wife) because being a father, even if he has no legal duty, he has a moral obligation and duty as a father to ensure maintenance to his children, particularly when they are at the verge of completing their education, as any order to refund the amount paid in excess to the children would hamper the future prospects of the petitioners.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court says that it is needless to say, the rejection of the prayer of petitioners for their maintenance after attaining the age of majority under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall not debar them from claiming their right for maintenance or otherwise in the estate of their father or predecessors-in-interest, if any, with them under other provisions of law.
Judgement: “With the aforesaid observations, the petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms, upholding the right of petitioner No. 2 (son) for an enhanced maintenance until 17.03.2020 from 02.07.2018. The rest of the prayer is rejected with the rider that respondent No. 1 (husband/father) shall not be entitled to a refund of any amount paid in excess for maintenance to his children. All pending applications also stand disposed of.”
Shashank Agarwal, Founder, Legum Solis, says: "This judgment explains and distinguishes between the various legal provisions regarding claim for maintenance by children (whether legitimate or illegitimate) under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNS). Under CrPC, a major child, even an unmarried daughter, cannot claim maintenance unless the child suffers from any disability; under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, an unmarried daughter can claim maintenance from her father."
Agarwal says: "The one precedent that has been set under this judgment is that the payments made voluntarily by the father towards maintenance, which were not otherwise legally required or beyond the legal entitlement, the father cannot reclaim such amounts from the children, as it is still a father’s moral duty, if not legal duty."
Ajay Sharma, Advocate, Delhi High Court, says: "The Himachal Pradesh High Court has established an important principle that entitlement under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) and alteration in allowances under Section 127 CrPC (to Section 146 BNSS), is to be determined considering the age of children-applicant at the time of filling of the application before the concerned Court and not on the date of passing of order. This decision seeks to protect children from being prejudiced due to delays in passing of order in maintenance application as children suffer in a situation when a minor applicant attains majority."
The daughter’s date of birth is August 1, 1998, and the son’s is March 17, 2002. They attained the age of majority on August 1, 2016, and March 17, 2020, respectively.
Both the son and daughter in the petition submitted that financial constraints could adversely impact and disrupt their studies. Considering her children’s situation, their mother, along with them, filed a case against their father/husband for the grant of maintenance allowance before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. On July 9, 2012, the First Class Judicial Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs 2,000 per month to each of them (the mother, son, and daughter).
In the revision petition filed by them against the aforementioned order of the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Additional Sessions Judge-II, vide order dated March 20, 2015, enhanced maintenance from Rs 2,000 to Rs 3,000 per month. Subsequently, the aforesaid maintenance allowance was enhanced to Rs 4,000 per month in Lok Adalat on July 22, 2017.
On July 2, 2018, the mother, son, and daughter filed a petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking a further increase in maintenance allowance. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, allowed the enhancement from Rs 4,000 to Rs 8,000 per month with respect to proforma respondent No. 2 (mother). However, the claim of enhancement of maintenance for the petitioners (son and daughter) was dismissed on the ground that they have reached the age of majority.
The mother and her children subsequently filed an appeal against this order in the Himachal Pradesh High Court. On September 12, 2025, they partly won the case.
Also read: Teacher arrested on ground of moral turpitude and compulsorily retired, will get pension and gratuity benefits for this reason, rules Jharkhand High Court
Kritika Seth, Founding Partner, The Victoriam Legalis, said to ET Wealth Online: "The present case (2025:HHC:31444), heard before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, sets a significant precedent with respect to the scope of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956."
Seth says that the cornerstone of the dispute was the entitlement to continued or enhanced maintenance for individuals who have attained majority but are pursuing higher education and do not possess the financial means to maintain themselves.
Seth says that the Family Court in this case had already dismissed the application of the respondents’ children for enhancement of maintenance, taking into account the fact that they were no longer minors. The Himachal Pradesh High Court partially upheld this order and ruled that under Section 125 of the CrPC, a father’s duty to maintain children ends when they reach the age of 18.
Seth explains that the exception applies only to those individuals who have attained majority but suffer from any physical or mental abnormality or injury as a result of which they are unable to maintain themselves. Therefore, it was held that the daughter, who was not a minor at the time of filing the application, was not eligible for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
Additionally, the Court also held that considering the fact that the son had not attained majority when the application was filed, he was entitled to enhanced maintenance, but only until the date he turned 18.
Seth says that this judgment thus also highlighted that under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 an unmarried daughter, unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or property, is entitled to maintenance from her father, irrespective of her age. Therefore, the Hon’ble Court further held that although the father may not be bound by law to maintain his children under the CrPC, it is his moral obligation to support them financially since the children are still pursuing education.
Also read: Govt deducted Rs 9.23 lakh from pension of late employee; employees' legal heirs fight back, win the case in Chhattisgarh High Court
Analysis by the Himachal Pradesh High Court
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in the order (2025:HHC:31444) dated September 12, 2025, said that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and corresponding Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita provide the provisions with respect to the entitlement of a wife and children for maintenance if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain:
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself;
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself; and
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said: “From the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that a child (legitimate or illegitimate) is entitled to maintenance from the father before attaining the age of majority, and after attaining such majority, only that child (legitimate or illegitimate) shall be entitled to maintenance who, because of physical or mental abnormality or injury, is unable to maintain itself.”
However, in this present case, the petitioners are legitimate children of respondent No.1 (husband) and proforma respondent No.2 (wife). They are not suffering any physical or mental abnormality or injury so as to render them incapable of maintaining.
Also read: She filed criminal cases solely with the intention of harassing her husband, says Andhra Pradesh High Court and quashes Section 498A case
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that thus, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., petitioners were legally entitled to maintenance until attaining the age of majority. Therefore, petitioner No.1 (daughter) was entitled to maintenance from her father under Section 125 Cr.P.C. till August 1, 2016, whereas petitioner No.2 (son) was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. till March 17, 2020.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that when the application for enhancement was filed on July 2, 2018, petitioner No. 1 (daughter) had already reached the age of majority. However, petitioner No. 2 (son) was a minor till March 17, 2020. The Family Court, considering the index of prices for essential commodities, the salary of respondent No. 1 (father/husband), and other circumstances, has increased the maintenance of proforma respondent No. 2 (mother/wife) from Rs 4,000 to Rs 8,000 per month.
Also read: Homebuyer was denied Rs 10 lakh capital gain tax exemption by Income Tax dept for not depositing unutilised land sale gains in CGAS on time, he wins case in ITAT Chennai
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said: “No challenge has been laid to this enhancement. Therefore, this enhancement has attained finality between the parties.”
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that this enhancement of maintenance has been made payable from the date of filing of the application i.e., July 2, 2018. However, the Family Court has failed to notice that though petitioner No. 1 (daughter) had attained majority on August 1, 2016, i.e., prior to the filing of the application for enhancement of maintenance, petitioner No. 2 (son) was a minor at that time who attained majority only on March 17, 2020.
Also read: Son applies for late father’s bank job on compassionate grounds, gets no response for years, files case, wins Rs 1 lakh, Allahabad High Court order
Being a minor till March 17, 2020, petitioner No. 2 (son) was entitled to the enhancement till March 17, 2020. Therefore, Family Court has committed a mistake by rejecting the claim of enhancement on behalf of petitioner No. 2 (son) in toto, instead from the date of attaining the age of majority.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said: “Petitioner No. 2 (son) is entitled to an enhanced amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs 8,000 from July 2, 2018, till March 17, 2020.”
The Himachal Pradesh High Court explains Hindu law
The Himachal Pradesh High Court says:
- Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, deals with custody, maintenance, and education of minor children, and such children are entitled to maintenance and education during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as thereafter, but it again provides maintenance only for minor children.
- Section 20(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, also provides that a legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his or her father or mother so long as the child is a minor.
- Section 20(3) states the obligation of a person to maintain a daughter who is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that though in Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a daughter shall be entitled to maintenance till attaining the age of majority, under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, an unmarried daughter, unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or property, is entitled to maintenance from her father, irrespective of her age. However, Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 of BNSS) does not have provisions for maintenance for a major daughter, even if she is unmarried.
Also read: Higher EPS pension can’t be denied to members retiring after September 1, 2014, once EPFO accepts higher wage contributions, Kerala High Court
Judgement of the Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said
- “In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the order denying maintenance to petitioner No. 1 (mother/wife). However, as noticed, there is a mistake committed by the Family Court by denying maintenance to petitioner No. 2 (son) at the enhanced rate from 02.07.2018 to 17.03.2020.
- Therefore, apart from respondent No. 2 (mother/wife), petitioner No. 2 (son) shall also be entitled to maintenance at the enhanced rate of Rs 8,000 per month from 02.07.2018 to 17.03.2020. 19.
- In case the maintenance amount has not been paid by respondent No. 1 (husband/father), he shall pay the arrears on or before 15.10.2025 to petitioner No. 2 (son).
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that in case respondent No. 1 (husband) has paid maintenance to petitioners No. 1 and 2 (wife/mother and son) even after attaining the age of majority by them, even then, he shall not be entitled to recover the same or adjust it against maintenance payable to either the child or proforma respondent No. 2 (mother/wife) because being a father, even if he has no legal duty, he has a moral obligation and duty as a father to ensure maintenance to his children, particularly when they are at the verge of completing their education, as any order to refund the amount paid in excess to the children would hamper the future prospects of the petitioners.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court says that it is needless to say, the rejection of the prayer of petitioners for their maintenance after attaining the age of majority under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall not debar them from claiming their right for maintenance or otherwise in the estate of their father or predecessors-in-interest, if any, with them under other provisions of law.
Judgement: “With the aforesaid observations, the petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms, upholding the right of petitioner No. 2 (son) for an enhanced maintenance until 17.03.2020 from 02.07.2018. The rest of the prayer is rejected with the rider that respondent No. 1 (husband/father) shall not be entitled to a refund of any amount paid in excess for maintenance to his children. All pending applications also stand disposed of.”
Shashank Agarwal, Founder, Legum Solis, says: "This judgment explains and distinguishes between the various legal provisions regarding claim for maintenance by children (whether legitimate or illegitimate) under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNS). Under CrPC, a major child, even an unmarried daughter, cannot claim maintenance unless the child suffers from any disability; under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, an unmarried daughter can claim maintenance from her father."
Agarwal says: "The one precedent that has been set under this judgment is that the payments made voluntarily by the father towards maintenance, which were not otherwise legally required or beyond the legal entitlement, the father cannot reclaim such amounts from the children, as it is still a father’s moral duty, if not legal duty."
Ajay Sharma, Advocate, Delhi High Court, says: "The Himachal Pradesh High Court has established an important principle that entitlement under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) and alteration in allowances under Section 127 CrPC (to Section 146 BNSS), is to be determined considering the age of children-applicant at the time of filling of the application before the concerned Court and not on the date of passing of order. This decision seeks to protect children from being prejudiced due to delays in passing of order in maintenance application as children suffer in a situation when a minor applicant attains majority."
You may also like
Brits fork out more than £5billion to fix their botched DIY attempts
Get a new Fire TV Stick for just £4.99 but only if you act before Tuesday
Watch: Heavy rains lash parts of UAE; lowest temperature of 18ºC recorded
I worked with Rylan Clark and Rob Rinder and both showed their true colours
Antiques Roadshow's highest-ever valued item and it will shock you
