LUCKNOW: While dealing with a case involving child marriage and a maintenance claim against a minor husband, the Allahabad High Court has held that application under Sections 125 and 128 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking maintenance against a minor was maintainable.
The High Court, however, reduced the amount of maintenance.
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a husband, a minor at the time his wife sought maintenance, could not be compelled to pay allowance for that period, but would be considered liable once he turn 18.
Modifying a Bareilly family court’s order, the High Court reduced the maintenance amount from Rs 9,000 to Rs 4,500 per month, payable from January 2021, when the man turned 18.
The couple's marriage was solemnized on July 10, 2016 and they were blessed with a daughter on September 21, 2018.
In February 2019, the wife moved the family court seeking maintenance for herself and the child under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
In November 2023, the family court directed the man to pay Rs 5,000 to his wife and Rs 4,000 to his daughter every month from the date of the application.
Challenging the court order, the man moved the Allahabad High Court, arguing that he was a minor both at the time of his marriage and when the maintenance plea was filed. He produced his high school certificate showing his date of birth as January 1, 2003, making him just 13 at the time of marriage and 16-year-old when the legal proceedings towards divorce commenced.
Petitioner Abhishek Singh Yadav claimed that no case under Section 125 CrPC could be filed against a minor without impleading a guardian.
His lawyer contended that petitioner’s wife had left him without sufficient cause, which under Section 125(4), disentitled her from claiming maintenance.
It was also submitted that the petitioner was a student who had no income and the family court erred in assuming that he earned between Rs 25,000 and Rs 30,000 per month.
Even if he worked, his potential income was pegged at Rs 10,000 per month, making the Rs 9,000 maintenance order “excessive and exorbitant.”
Opposing the submissions, the wife’s counsel and the State insisted that a husband could not shirk his responsibility towards his wife and the minor child.
They pointed out that the family possessed agricultural land, a tractor, and a car, indicating financial capacity.
They also stressed that the aggrieved wife had to leave the matrimonial home due to dowry harassment, which was a sufficient ground to live separately.
The bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh, after hearing both sides, observed that Section 125 CrPC contained no bar on proceedings against a minor husband. However, he acknowledged that until the man attained majority on January 1, 2021, he could not be presumed to have “sufficient means” to provide financial support.
The Court, therefore, held him liable to pay maintenance only after that date. The High Court rejected the family court’s assessment of income. Instead, it estimated the man’s potential earning capacity as an able-bodied man at Rs 18,000 per month, equivalent to daily wage labour.
Applying the Supreme Court’s guidelines, which capped maintenance at 25 per cent of net income, the High Court fixed the allowance at Rs 2,500 per month for the wife and Rs 2,000 for the daughter. The arrears were directed to be recalculated on this basis, with any excess payment adjusted in future instalments.