No Bar in Law to Initiate Maintenance Proceedings Against Minor Husband: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Scope of Section 125 CrPC

“Legal Obligation to Maintain Wife and Daughter Arises Upon Attaining Majority – Maintenance Must Be Reasonable and Based on Earning Capacity” - In a significant and nuanced ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that a wife's application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable even against a husband who was a minor at the time of filing. However, the legal obligation to pay maintenance shall arise only after the husband attains the age of majority, as a minor cannot be expected to earn or provide support.

The judgment, delivered on 25th September 2025 by Justice Madan Pal Singh in Criminal Revision, partially allowed the revision and modified the maintenance awarded to the wife and daughter, reducing the total monthly maintenance from ₹9,000 to ₹4,500, effective from the date the husband attained majority – 1st January 2021.

"CrPC Does Not Bar Maintenance Proceedings Against Minor Husband – Family Court Procedure Under Chapter IX Is Independent of Civil Procedure Code"

At the heart of the revision was the contention that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC could not be maintained against a minor, especially when no guardian was impleaded. The revisionist had married the opposite party no. 2 on 10 July 2016 and had a daughter born from the marriage on 21 September 2018. The maintenance application was filed on 10 February 2019, at which time the husband was still a minor, as his high school certificate showed his date of birth as 1 January 2003.

Rejecting the plea of non-maintainability, the Court held:

“There is no bar in the Code of Criminal Procedure which prohibits a wife to initiate proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her minor husband... The provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 make it clear that proceedings under Chapter IX of the CrPC are governed entirely by the CrPC, not the Civil Procedure Code.”

Quoting Section 10(2) and Section 18(2) of the Family Courts Act, the Court reinforced that orders under Section 125 CrPC are governed by the CrPC alone, and a guardian’s representation is not mandatory in such cases.

“Husband’s Minority Does Not Erase Wife’s Right – Legal Duty Arises Post Majority”

While accepting the maintainability of the petition, the High Court held that no legal obligation to pay maintenance can arise against a person during his minority as he is himself presumed to be financially dependent on others. However, this does not preclude the filing of proceedings, and the liability becomes operative upon attainment of majority.

“This Court has to consider the age of the revisionist mentioned in his high school certificate... On 1st January, 2021, the revisionist attained majority... He cannot be presumed to have sufficient means to maintain his wife and daughter before that. However, after attaining majority, he is legally obligated to do so.”

“Wife’s Separation Justified – Cruelty and Dowry Demands Found Proven”

Another key argument raised by the husband was that the wife had refused to live with him without sufficient cause, disqualifying her under Section 125(4) CrPC. The Court, however, endorsed the findings of the Family Court, which recorded that the wife had been subjected to harassment and cruelty for dowry demands, and that even after a compromise, she was again harassed upon her return.

“The trial court recorded categorical finding that opposite party no.2 has sufficient cause to live separately... It is admitted that the husband himself acknowledged dowry being taken during cross-examination.”

The High Court held that such findings, based on evidence, could not be reappreciated in revision, and the wife had sufficient reason to live separately.

“Maintenance Must Be Realistic – 25% of Notional Income is a Just Estimate”

The Family Court had originally awarded ₹5,000/month to the wife and ₹4,000/month to the daughter, based on a presumed income of ₹25,000–₹30,000/month. The revisionist contested this, stating he was a student with no income, and any earning capacity was at best limited to ₹10,000/month through labour.

The High Court, taking a pragmatic approach, referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324] and Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari [(1970) 3 SCC 129], which held that maintenance must be fair, reasonable, and generally limited to 25% of the husband's income.

Since the husband was found to be able-bodied, the Court applied a notional income of ₹600/day, i.e., ₹18,000/month as reasonable earnings through physical labour.

“The revisionist is able-bodied and can earn ₹18,000/month by labour. 25% of this is ₹4,500, which shall be the total monthly maintenance – ₹2,500 for the wife and ₹2,000 for the daughter.”

The Court directed that this reduced maintenance shall be payable from 1st January 2021, the date the revisionist attained majority. Any excess amount already paid under the earlier order was directed to be adjusted.

Petition Partly Allowed – Liability Fixed Post Majority – Maintenance Reduced as per Apex Court Guidelines

Summarising its findings, the Allahabad High Court modified the trial court's order as follows:

“From 1st January, 2021, the revisionist shall pay ₹2,500 per month to his wife and ₹2,000 per month to his minor daughter. Any amount paid in excess shall be adjusted accordingly. The revision is partly allowed.”

The Court thus reconciled the conflict between the procedural rights of the wife and the minority status of the husband, balancing both constitutional rights and practical realities.

Date of Decision: 25 September 2025