Major children are ineligible for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC absent physical or mental abnormality.

The petitioner and respondent were married in January 1997 and have three children

Following a history of matrimonial litigation, including a withdrawn divorce case (F.C. Civil Case No. 741/2013) and a withdrawn domestic violence case (C.R. (D.V.) Case No. 16/2014) based on a breached promise of maintenance, the petitioner filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC

On 26.05.2025, the Family Court granted maintenance to the petitioner and her children but terminated the son’s maintenance upon his attainment of majority, despite his ongoing graduation studies

The petitioner moved the High Court in revision to extend the son’s maintenance until he completes his studies or begins earning, and to enhance the maintenance amount to Rs. 15,000

1. Whether a child who has attained majority but is still pursuing education is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC

2. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, can grant maintenance beyond the age of majority by exercising powers similar to Article 142 of the Constitution

The court primarily applied Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 125(1)(b) stipulates that maintenance is payable to a legitimate or illegitimate minor child

Section 125(1)(c) provides an exception for children who have attained majority only if they are unable to maintain themselves due to "physical or mental abnormality or injury"

The court further clarified that while the Supreme Court may grant maintenance to adult children pursuing education under the extraordinary powers of Article 142 of the Constitution (as seen in Chandrashekar v. Swapnil, 2021 12 SCC 624), such powers do not vest in the High Court

The Court analyzed the statutory language of Section 125(1) and determined that the legislature intentionally restricted the eligibility for maintenance to minor children, except in specific cases of disability

The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on Chandrashekar v. Swapnil and Urvashi Agarwal v. Indarpal Agarwal, noting that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction does not permit issuing directions that are "plainly contrary to law," even if intended to prevent vagrancy

It was observed that the son had attained majority in 2021 and did not suffer from any physical or mental abnormality that would trigger the exception under Section 125(1)(c)

Consequently, the father’s legal obligation to maintain the son ceased upon the son reaching the age of 18

It held that under Section 125 CrPC, a son is not entitled to maintenance beyond the age of majority solely on the ground of pursuing higher education

The Court concluded that it lacks the jurisdiction to extend statutory benefits beyond the express limits set by the legislature