Maintenance for child with autism cannot automatically stop at 18, Chhattisgarh High Court rules

The applicant, a 14-year-old child represented through his natural guardian mother, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance from his father.

The applicant alleged that he suffered from Autism Spectrum Disorder and Speech Disorder, requiring specialised education, therapy, medical treatment and continuous care.

The Family Court had earlier granted interim maintenance of ₹7,000 per month and, by order dated 9 July 2026, partly allowed the substantive application by awarding ₹7,000 per month from the date of the order until the applicant attained majority.

In revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the applicant challenged both the quantum of maintenance and its restriction to the period before attaining majority.

Whether the monthly maintenance of ₹7,000 awarded by the Family Court required enhancement in view of the applicant’s specialised educational, medical and care-related needs.

Whether maintenance payable to a child suffering from physical or mental abnormality or disability could be automatically terminated upon the child attaining majority, notwithstanding the possibility that the child may remain incapable of maintaining himself.

The Court applied Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which confers revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by a Family Court.

The Court applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governing claims for maintenance.

It held that the quantum of maintenance depends on the claimant’s needs and the financial capacity of the person liable to maintain him, and is ordinarily determined on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The Court further applied the principle that attainment of majority cannot, by itself, automatically terminate maintenance where a person suffers from a physical or mental abnormality or disability and remains unable to maintain himself; the relevant consideration is his actual capacity to maintain himself and earn a livelihood at the relevant time.

The Court found no patent illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s assessment of ₹7,000 per month, noting that the Family Court had considered the material and the parties’ circumstances; therefore, the claim for enhancement was rejected.

However, the applicant had produced a disability certificate and other material indicating Autism Spectrum Disorder and Speech Disorder, showing that he might require continued financial support and care after attaining majority.

Applying the principle that majority alone is not determinative where disability may prevent self-maintenance, the Court held that the Family Court erred in pre-determining automatic cessation of maintenance at majority.

The applicant’s post-majority entitlement must instead be assessed on the evidence and circumstances existing at the relevant time.

The award of ₹7,000 per month was maintained, and the prayer for enhancement was rejected.

The condition limiting payment until the applicant attained majority was set aside.

The father was directed to continue paying ₹7,000 per month even after the applicant attained majority, unless and until it was established before the Family Court, through cogent and reliable evidence, that the applicant had become capable of maintaining himself and earning his livelihood.