The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, presided over by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, has sought a formal explanation from a Family Court judge who directed a father to pay monthly maintenance to his major son until his marriage or until he becomes capable of earning income. Hearing a criminal revision petition challenging the Family Court’s order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the High Court asked the judicial officer to clarify under what circumstances and statutory provisions such an order was issued for an adult male child who suffers from no physical or mental disability.
Background of the Case
The matter stems from a maintenance application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in 2009 by Smt. Seema Tomar (wife) and her son, Aditya Kumar Singh, against the revisionist, Rajeev Shishodiya (Misc. Case No. 09 of 2009). On November 7, 2025, Ms. Neetu Yadav, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court Room No. 3, Bulandshahr, delivered an order rejecting the maintenance claim of the wife on the ground that she was employed in a private institution and earning a salary.
However, the Family Court allowed the petition in respect of the son and ordered the father to pay maintenance in the following graded structure:
- Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of application (February 5, 2009) up to December 2013
- Rs. 30,000/- per month from January 2014 to December 2018
- Rs. 45,000/- per month from January 2019 to December 2023
- Rs. 60,000/- per month from January 2024 continuously until his marriage or until he becomes capable of earning income
Aggrieved by this direction, the revisionist filed a Criminal Revision before the Allahabad High Court seeking to set aside or stay the operation of the Family Court’s order.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the revisionist, Avinash Chandra Srivastava, submitted that the date of birth of the son is June 2, 2004. As per Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, he attained the age of majority on June 2, 2022 upon completing 18 years. Consequently, on the date the impugned order was passed (November 7, 2025), the son was over 21 years old.
The revisionist contended that under Section 125(1)(c) of the Cr.P.C., a major child (whether legitimate or illegitimate) is entitled to claim maintenance only where such child is, “by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself”. It was highlighted that while the law and judicial precedents allow maintenance to unmarried adult daughters who cannot maintain themselves, no provision of law permits granting maintenance to a major male child who is physically and mentally sound.
In support of this argument, the revisionist relied upon key judicial precedents:
- Noor Saba Khatoon vs. Mohd. Quasim (AIR 1997 SC 3280), where the Supreme Court observed:
“By Muslim law maintenance (nafaqa) is a birth right of children and an absolute liability of the father. Daughters are entitled to maintenance till they get married if they are bakira (maiden), or till they get remarried if they are thaviba (divorce/widow). Sons are entitled to till they attain bulugh if they are normal; and as long as necessary if they are handicapped or indigent. providing maintenance to daughters is a great religious virtue. The Prophet had said: ‘Whoever has daughters and spends all that the has on their upbringing well, on the Day of Judgment, be as close to me as two fingers of a hand.'”
The apex court held that minor children are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. until they attain majority or can maintain themselves, and in the case of females, until they get married. - Abhilasha vs. Prakash (AIR 2020 SC 4355), where the Supreme Court referred to State of Haryana and Others Vs. Santra (Smt.) ((2000) 5 SCC 182), noting that “under the Mohammedan Law, a father is bound to maintain his sons until they have attained the age of puberty”, and observed that Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is “nothing but recognition of principles of Hindu Law regarding maintenance of children and aged parents.”
The revisionist maintained that directing maintenance to a major, non-disabled son until his marriage or earning capacity is bad in the eyes of law.
Court’s Analysis and Directives
Upon examining the record, the relevant legal provisions, and the arguments presented, Justice Praveen Kumar Giri found it pertinent to review the operative portion of the Family Court’s order and questioned the legal foundation of the directive.
The High Court directed Ms. Neetu Yadav, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court Room No. 3, Bulandshahr, to submit an explanation through the Registrar (Compliance) within 15 days from the order date as to “under what circumstances and which provisions of law, the impugned order dated 07.11.2025 has been passed directing the revisionist to pay maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month to his major son/opposite party no.3, till his marriage or until he becomes capable of earning income.”
Case Directions and Next Hearing
The High Court issued notice to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 (wife and son) to file their counter affidavit within 15 days. State A.G.A. Shashidhar Pandey was instructed to communicate the order to the concerned police station for service of notice, while the Registrar (Compliance) was directed to forthwith convey the order to the Family Court Judge as well as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr.
The matter has been ordered to be listed on August 4, 2026, amongst the top ten cases.
Case Title: Rajeev Shishodiya Versus State of U.P. and 2 others
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 194 of 2026
Bench: Justice Praveen Kumar Giri
Date: July 21, 2026
