The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a father’s statutory obligation to maintain his child under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not automatically terminate upon the child attaining the age of majority when the child suffers from a severe physical disability and remains unable to maintain himself. A single-judge bench of Justice Uday Kumar dismissed a criminal revisional application filed by a father challenging two interlocutory orders that had upheld the maintainability of an application under Section 127 CrPC filed by the mother on behalf of their 70% physically disabled major son. Affirming the lower court’s decisions, the High Court directed the trial court to expedite pending execution proceedings and record evidence without granting unwarranted adjournments.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces its origin to 2005, when Opposite Party No. 2 (Tumpa Pramanick) filed Misc. Case No. 163 of 2005 under Section 125 CrPC before the Magistrate seeking maintenance for herself and her minor, ailing son, Sudipta Pramanick (Opposite Party No. 3, born on November 20, 2001), alleging neglect and refusal to maintain by the petitioner-father, Samit Pramanick.
By an order dated July 6, 2012, the Trial Court dismissed the mother’s individual claim after finding that her marriage was void because it was solemnized during the subsistence of the husband’s prior valid marriage from 1992 or 1993. However, the court recognized the child’s statutory entitlement and directed the father to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 3,000/-. The father’s challenge to that directive was subsequently dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in CRR No. 77 of 2014 on November 22, 2016.
After the son attained majority, the mother approached the Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Ranaghat, Nadia under Section 127 CrPC (registered as Misc. Case No. 388 of 2018) seeking the continuation and modification of the maintenance allowance on the ground that the son suffered from a 70% to 75% orthopaedic disability and remained entirely incapable of sustaining himself. The father opposed the proceedings by filing successive applications on August 20, 2019, and October 28, 2022, questioning the maintainability of the petition. He contended that because the son had attained majority, passed Higher Secondary education, pursued an Industrial Training Institute (ITI) vocational course, and could walk without an escort, the mother had no locus standi to initiate proceedings on his behalf.
The Magistrate rejected the father’s objections on March 31, 2022, and January 10, 2023, holding that the second proviso to Section 125(1) CrPC protects major children unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormality, that the mother was competent to represent him as natural guardian, and imposed a cost of Rs. 500/- on the father for abuse of process. The father then moved the High Court in revision (CRR 534 of 2023) under Section 407 read with Section 482 CrPC.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner-father argued that once the son attained majority, he became sui juris, divesting the mother of any locus standi to maintain an application under Section 127 CrPC. It was contended that Section 127 only permits alteration of an existing allowance, and because maintenance automatically lapsed upon majority, a fresh original proceeding was mandatory. The petitioner also argued that failure to mandate disclosure affidavits of assets and liabilities as laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and reiterated in Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma vitiated the proceedings. Lastly, he submitted that the son’s ability to walk independently and his technical education at an ITI proved he was not totally incapacitated, and that the mother’s application was tainted with mala fides following the nullity of her marriage.
Opposing the petition, counsel for the mother and son submitted that the revision was a dilatory tactic designed by a chronic defaulter to evade statutory duties. Counsel highlighted that Section 125(1)(c) CrPC explicitly protects major children who cannot maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormalities. It was pointed out that the son’s 70% to 75% disability was established on record through medical certificates, and a mother acting as a natural caretaker can lawfully prosecute such a claim. Furthermore, counsel argued that the guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha and Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma govern fresh quantum determinations in contested trials and cannot be deployed as a technical shield to obstruct a pre-existing maintenance order where the father faced multiple pending execution proceedings under Section 128 CrPC and arrest warrants for long-standing arrears spanning 2019 to 2024.
The Court’s Analysis
Justice Uday Kumar formulated three primary questions: whether a father’s obligation under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC terminates automatically upon majority despite a proven 70% disability; whether the absence of asset affidavits under Rajnesh v. Neha and Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma vitiates an interlocutory maintainability order concerning a pre-existing adjudication; and whether the trial court’s orders suffered from any illegality warranting revisional interference.
Examining Section 125(1)(c) and Section 127 CrPC, the Court noted that while Section 125 primarily addresses minors, its statutory provisos specifically create an exception for adult children (other than married daughters) who are unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormality or injury. Rejecting the father’s premise, the Court observed:
“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.”
The Court held that reaching majority alongside a continuing 70% to 75% orthopaedic disability constitutes a material change in circumstances amenable to continuation under Section 127 CrPC. Disapproving the father’s assertions regarding the son’s vocational training and mobility, the Court remarked:
“The mere acquisition of an ITI technical qualification or the physical ability to walk independently, as argued by the petitioner, does not equate to employability, financial independence, or the capacity to sustain oneself in a competitive socio-economic environment.”
On the issue of the mother’s standing, the Bench held:
“A person grappling with a 70% to 75% orthopaedic disability cannot be cast out of the portals of justice on procedural pedantry. A parent or close relative acting as a next friend to ventilate the rights of a disabled adult is a recognized facet of access to justice.”
Addressing the petitioner’s reliance on Rajnesh v. Neha and Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma, the Court held that those rulings govern adversarial disputes where incomes are hidden and quantum must be assessed in original trials. In the present case, the maintenance amount had remained static at Rs. 3,000/- since 2012 and was affirmed by the High Court in 2016. Observing that the Section 127 proceeding was not an attempt to seek an exorbitant upward escalation, the Court stated:
“The Section 127 Cr.P.C. proceeding did not seek an exorbitant upward escalation of quantum based on a sudden leap in the husband’s income; rather, it was a protective shield to prevent a destitute disabled adult from falling into total vagrancy.”
The Court characterized the father’s repeated unverified objections as an abuse of judicial process. Clarifying the temporal nature of such maintenance obligations, the Court remarked:
“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 of the Code provides an open gateway for modification or cancellation if and when a genuine, material change in circumstances occurs.”
The Court emphasized that any such modification requires substantive proof of actual gainful employment and self-sufficiency in the open market, rather than speculative assumptions.
Decision of the Court
Finding no jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or material irregularity in the orders of the Magistrate, the High Court dismissed CRR No. 534 of 2023 and affirmed the interlocutory orders dated March 31, 2022, and January 10, 2023.
The Court vacated all interim orders and directed the Trial Court to expedite the pending execution proceedings, ensure strict compliance regarding arrears and costs, and proceed forthwith with the recording of evidence without granting unwarranted adjournments to the petitioner-husband.
Case Title: Samit Pramanick -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No.: CRR 534 OF 2023
Bench: Justice Uday Kumar
Date: 21.09.2026
