Major son with 18% disability ineligible for maintenance as physical incapacity is not legally established.

The applicant, Birendra Kumar Sahu, married Smt. Laxmi Sahu in 2022. Following family disputes and pressure from his in-laws to claim a share in his father’s property, the applicant met with a motorcycle accident in April 2023.

Consequently, the applicant claimed he became disabled and unable to earn a livelihood. His wife subsequently filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and lodged an FIR under Section 498A IPC.

The applicant filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking maintenance of ₹8,000 per month from both his father (Respondent No. 1) and his father-in-law (Respondent No. 2).

The Family Court, Rajnandgaon, dismissed the application at the pre-registration stage on 25.02.2026, leading to this revision petition.

1. Whether a major son is entitled to maintenance from his father or father-in-law under Section 144 of the BNSS (formerly Section 125 CrPC) in the absence of a recognized benchmark disability.

2. Whether the Family Court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in rejecting the maintenance application at the pre-registration stage.

Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [formerly Section 125 CrPC], which stipulates that a father is obligated to maintain a major son only if the son is unable to maintain himself due to physical or mental abnormality or injury.

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which defines a "benchmark disability" as a disability of 40% or more, establishing the legal threshold for categorized functional incapacity.

The Court examined the applicant's contention that his 18% disability, resulting from a road accident, rendered him unable to maintain himself.

The Court observed that under the prevailing statutory framework of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, a person is only legally recognized as having a benchmark disability if the impairment is 40% or higher.

Since the applicant’s medical certificate showed only 18% disability, he did not meet the legal criteria for "functional incapacity" required to compel a father to maintain a major son.

Additionally, the Court found no legal basis for a claim of maintenance against a father-in-law (Respondent No. 2) under the applicable provisions.

The High Court determined that the Family Court correctly identified that the application lacked a prima facie legal foundation for registration.

The Family Court's order contained no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error.

The criminal revision was dismissed as being devoid of merit.