The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a wife can file for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC against her minor husband. However, the legal liability to pay arises only after the husband attains the age of majority.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a husband who was a minor when his wife sought maintenance cannot be obligated to pay for that period but becomes responsible once he reaches adulthood.
The court modified a previous order from a Bareilly family court, reducing the maintenance amount from Rs.9,000 to Rs.4,500 per month, effective from January 2021, when the man turned 18.
The couple was married on July 10, 2016, and their daughter was born on September 21, 2018. In February 2019, the wife filed for maintenance for herself and their child under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
In November 2023, the court ordered the husband to pay Rs.5,000 to his wife and Rs.4,000 to his daughter each month starting from the date of the application.
Challenging this ruling, the husband approached the Allahabad High Court, arguing that he was a minor at both the time of marriage and when the maintenance claim was filed. He submitted his high school certificate, which indicated his birth date as January 1, 2003, making him just 13 at the time of marriage and 16 when the proceedings began.
He contended that a case under Section 125 CrPC could not be initiated against a minor without including a guardian.
His attorney further argued that the wife had left him without valid reason, which under Section 125(4) would disqualify her from seeking support.
Additionally, it was claimed that he was a student without any income, and the family court misjudged his earnings, estimating them between Rs.25,000 and Rs.30,000 per month. Even if he worked, his potential income was assessed at Rs.10,000 per month, making the Rs.9,000 maintenance order “excessive and exorbitant.”
In opposition, the wife’s counsel and the State maintained that a husband cannot evade his responsibilities towards his wife and minor child. They highlighted that the family owned agricultural land, a tractor, and a car, demonstrating financial capability. They also noted that she left the matrimonial home due to dowry harassment, which justified her separation.
Justice Madan Pal Singh, after considering both arguments, noted that Section 125 CrPC does not prohibit proceedings against a minor husband.
However, he acknowledged that until the man reached adulthood on January 1, 2021, he could not be assumed to have “sufficient means” for support. Consequently, the court held him liable for maintenance only after that date.
Regarding the amount, the court dismissed the family court’s income assessment and estimated the husband’s potential earning capacity as an able-bodied individual at Rs18,000 per month, which reflects daily wage labor.
Following the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) and Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari (1970), which stipulate that maintenance should not exceed 25% of net income, the high court set the maintenance at Rs.2,500 per month for the wife and Rs.2,000 for the daughter.
The court ordered that arrears be recalculated accordingly, with any overpayment adjusted in future installments.
Case Title: Abhishek Singh Yadav vs State of UP and Others
Read Attachment