Calcutta High Court: A criminal revision petition was filed under Sections 407 and 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) challenging the orders dated 31 March 2022 and 10 January 2023, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Ranaghat, Nadia, whereby the trial court rejected the petitioner-husband’s challenge to the maintainability of maintenance proceedings under Section 127 CrPC initiated on behalf of his major son suffering from 70 per cent physical disability. Uday Kumar, J., held that the impugned orders suffer from no material irregularity, or legal impropriety, and the trial court has correctly interpreted the statutory safeguards protecting a physically handicapped adult dependent.
The dispute originated in 2005 when the wife instituted proceedings under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son, alleging neglect by the petitioner-husband. By order dated 6 July 2012, the trial court rejected the wife’s claim after finding that her marriage with the petitioner was void due to the subsistence of his earlier marriage. However, it awarded maintenance of ₹3000 per month to their minor son, who suffered from physical disability. The husband’s challenge to the maintenance awarded to the son was subsequently dismissed by the High Court on 22 November 2016.
After the son attained majority, the mother filed an application under Section 127 CrPC seeking continuation/modification of maintenance on the ground that he suffered 70—75 per cent orthopaedic disability and was incapable of maintaining himself. The husband challenged the maintainability of the proceedings, contending that the son had attained majority, completed his Higher Secondary Education, pursued an ITI course and could move independently, and that the mother lacked locus standi to pursue maintenance on his behalf. The Judicial Magistrate rejected these objections, holding that a major child unable to maintain himself due to physical or mental abnormality remained entitled to maintenance under Section 125(1) CrPC and that the mother was competent to maintain the application. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition was filed.
On the question whether the statutory obligation of a father to maintain his child under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC automatically terminates upon the child attaining majority, notwithstanding a proven 70 per cent physical disability and inability to maintain himself, the Court noted that the statutory scheme of Section 125 places a solemn social obligation upon a person having sufficient means to maintain his child. While the primary provision applies to minors, the statutory proviso carve out a vital exception, extending protection to a major child (not being a married daughter) who, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, is unable to maintain himself. To suggest that the obligation to pay maintenance automatically evaporates upon crossing the chronological threshold of majority, and that a severely disabled individual must initiate a de novo suit from scratch, is to misread the remedial philosophy of the statutory provision.
On the question whether the failure to file an affidavit of assets and liabilities in terms of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Aditi v. Jitesh Sharma, (2024) 14 SCC 355, vitiates an interlocutory order passed on a maintainability threshold regarding a pre-existing maintenance adjudication, the Court found the judgments to be misplaced.
The Court observed that the record reflects an egregious pattern of obstructive litigation by the husband-petitioner. Thus, raising identical objections regarding the son’s majority and the mother’s locus standi that were already conclusively repelled by the Court on 31 March 2022 through a fresh, unverified, and unsupported petition on 28 October 2022, is a textbook instance of abuse of the judicial process. The trial court acted with utmost propriety in penalising such dilatory tactics of the petitioner with nominal costs of ₹500.
The Court concluded that while the father is legally bound to maintain his severely disabled major son for as long as the disability persists and the son remains unable to maintain himself, Section 127 CrPC provides an open gateway for modification or cancellation if and when a genuine, material change in circumstances occurs. However, such alteration requires concrete, substantive proof of actual financial self-sufficiency and gainful employment in the open market, rather than speculative assumptions based on technical milestones or vocational training. Upon careful perusal of the impugned orders, the Court found no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error committed by the trial court in repelling to the husband’s maintainability of objections.
[Samit Pramanick v. State of W.B., 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 14034, decided on 21-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Partha Sarathi Das Md. Umer Shadique Mr. Agni Jyoti Chandra Ms. Sudipa Das
For the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3: Mr. Sayantan Hazra Ms. Santanu Mukherjee Mr. Emsul Kayes Ms. Madhumita Kar
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
