Madras HC Upholds ₹10,000 Interim Maintenance For Daughter Who Turned 18 After Filing, Leaves Post-Majority Support Open

The respondent, the petitioner’s daughter, applied for maintenance while still a minor.

The Family Court, Puducherry, ordered the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of ₹10,000 per month from the date of filing until disposal of the main maintenance case.

The petitioner sought revision, contending that the respondent attained majority shortly after filing, that she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. absent physical or mental abnormality, and that the amount was excessive in view of his income and commitments.

He also relied on an earlier custody order and asserted that he had made prior payments, including ₹5,00,000 on 8 July 2026.

The respondent opposed the revision, maintaining that the interim amount was reasonable and that her father had not adequately supported her.

Section 125(1)(c) Cr.P.C. permits a major child unable to maintain itself due to physical or mental abnormality or injury to claim maintenance, subject to the statutory conditions; a claim for the period when the claimant was a minor is not retrospectively invalidated merely because the claimant later attains majority.

Entitlement for the period after majority requires independent consideration by the Family Court under the applicable statutory provisions.

In revision, interference with an interim maintenance order is unwarranted absent patent illegality, perversity, or material irregularity.

No precedent was cited.

The Court held that the respondent’s subsequent attainment of majority did not retrospectively defeat her claim for the period during which she was a minor, while leaving her entitlement after majority for determination in the main proceedings.

The custody order did not establish that the petitioner had actually provided for the respondent’s needs, and the petitioner’s income and financial commitments required assessment on evidence; his obligations to his present family did not, by themselves, absolve him of responsibility towards his daughter.

The asserted prior payments, including the ₹5,00,000 payment, could be credited against arrears if verified, but did not nullify the interim order.

The Court found no sufficient basis to conclude that the monthly amount was unreasonable or that the order suffered from a defect warranting revisional interference.

It directed the Family Court to calculate arrears, credit all verified payments—including the alleged ₹5,00,000 payment—and take steps to recover and disburse the balance without unnecessary delay.

The Family Court was also directed to dispose of the main maintenance case expeditiously and independently determine the respondent’s entitlement, particularly for the period after she attained majority.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed; no costs were ordered.