Father’s duty to maintain a severely disabled son continues after majority, Calcutta High Court rules

Opposite Party No. 2, Tumpa Pramanick, initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC in 2005 seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son, Sudipta Pramanick (Opposite Party No. 3). Although the wife’s claim was rejected because her marriage with the petitioner was held void due to the petitioner’s subsisting prior marriage, the Trial Court granted the son maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month, recognising his entitlement as a minor child with disability.

The petitioner’s challenge to that order was dismissed by the High Court in CRR No. 77 of 2014 on 22 November 2016.

After the son attained majority, the mother filed an application under Section 127 CrPC in Misc. Case No. 388 of 2018 seeking continuation or modification of maintenance, asserting that the son suffered from 70%–75% orthopaedic disability and remained unable to maintain himself.

The petitioner sought dismissal of the proceedings on the grounds that the son’s majority terminated the earlier entitlement, that the mother lacked locus standi to represent him, and that the son’s education, ITI training, and ability to move independently demonstrated capacity for self-support.

The Magistrate rejected these objections by orders dated 31 March 2022 and 10 January 2023. The petitioner challenged those orders in the present revision under Sections 407 and 482 CrPC.

Whether the father’s obligation to maintain a child under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC automatically terminates upon the child attaining majority despite the child’s established physical disability and inability to maintain himself?

Whether the mother could maintain an application under Section 127 CrPC on behalf of a major son suffering from substantial physical disability?

Whether the absence of affidavits of assets and liabilities under Rajnesh v. Neha and Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma vitiated the interlocutory orders concerning maintainability of the Section 127 proceedings?

Whether the impugned orders suffered from illegality, material irregularity, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting revisional interference?

The Court applied Section 125(1)(c) CrPC, including the statutory protection available to a major child who, owing to physical or mental abnormality or injury, is unable to maintain himself.

Section 127 CrPC permits alteration, continuation, or cancellation of a maintenance allowance upon a change in circumstances; attainment of majority accompanied by continuing disability may therefore be considered in a Section 127 proceeding rather than requiring an entirely fresh claim.

The Court further applied the principle that a parent or close relative may act as a next friend or representative of a disabled adult to secure access to justice.

The disclosure requirements recognised in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, and Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma, (2024) 14 SCC 355, principally govern assessment of financial capacity and quantum in maintenance disputes and do not automatically invalidate a threshold order concerning continuation of an already adjudicated maintenance entitlement.

Revisional jurisdiction is warranted only where the subordinate court’s order discloses patent illegality, material irregularity, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

The Court held that majority did not, by itself, extinguish the son’s entitlement because Section 125(1)(c) expressly protects a major child unable to maintain himself due to physical abnormality or injury.

The son’s recorded 70%–75% orthopaedic disability constituted substantial material supporting continuation of maintenance.

His ability to walk independently, complete Higher Secondary education, or pursue ITI training did not establish gainful employment or financial self-sufficiency.

The mother was therefore competent to prosecute the claim as the son’s next friend, particularly in view of his substantial disability.

The Court also found that the Rajnesh and Aditi disclosure requirements could not be used to defeat the maintainability of the Section 127 proceeding, which concerned continuation of the previously fixed maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month rather than a fresh determination based on increased income.

The petitioner’s repeated objections were treated as obstructive and insufficient to demonstrate any jurisdictional or legal error in the Magistrate’s orders.

The revision was dismissed, and the orders dated 31 March 2022 and 10 January 2023 were affirmed.

Interim orders, if any, were vacated, and the Trial Court was directed to expedite the pending execution proceedings, secure payment of arrears and costs, and proceed with the evidence without granting unwarranted adjournments.

There was no order as to costs.