The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that the mere attainment of majority cannot automatically extinguish the right to receive maintenance for a child suffering from a physical or mental disability who remains unable to maintain himself. The observation was made by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha while hearing a criminal revision petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging an order of the Family Court, Durg.
The petitioner, Raghav Lahre, is diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Speech Disorder, requiring specialised education, continuous care, and medical attention. He had been awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs. 7,000 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Family Court, but only until he attained the age of majority. The petitioner contended that his condition necessitated continued financial support beyond majority, as he remained incapable of earning his livelihood or maintaining himself independently.
The Court examined whether the Family Court was justified in limiting the duration of maintenance to the point of attaining majority. It noted that the material on record indicated the petitioner may require continued care, assistance, and support even after reaching the age of 18 years. The Court expressly rejected the notion that majority operates as an automatic trigger for cessation of maintenance in cases involving disability.
Chief Justice Sinha observed: 'The mere attainment of the age of majority cannot, by itself, be treated as a circumstance resulting in the automatic cessation of the right to receive maintenance in the case of a child who is suffering from a physical or mental abnormality or disability and is unable to maintain himself.' The Court clarified that the determinative factor must be whether, after attaining majority, the individual is capable of maintaining himself and earning his livelihood. Age alone cannot serve as the sole basis for discontinuing maintenance.
On the quantum of maintenance, the Court found no patent illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s award of Rs. 7,000 per month. It reiterated that maintenance assessment is fact-specific, dependent on the claimant’s needs and the respondent’s financial capacity, and declined to interfere with the amount awarded.
However, the Court held that restricting maintenance to cease upon attainment of majority was not justified. It set aside that condition, directing that the maintenance amount shall continue to be paid beyond majority unless it is established that the petitioner has become capable of self-maintenance and earning a livelihood. The criminal revision was partly allowed to this extent.
The judgment in Raghav Lahre v. Bharat Lahre [CRR No. 1046 of 2026] affirms that maintenance provisions under Section 125 CrPC must be applied with sensitivity to disability, ensuring that legal milestones like majority do not override the substantive purpose of providing support to those unable to sustain themselves. The Court emphasized that future termination of maintenance must be based on evidence of capability, not on a presumptive rule tied to age.