Back
Can Stop Automatically at 18 for Autistic Child? Says No
A father cannot walk away from his obligations toward an autistic child simply because the child turns 18 , the has ruled in a judgment that clarifies the scope of when the beneficiary suffers from a lifelong disability.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, hearing a criminal revision filed by a 14‑year‑old boy through his mother, held that the mere attainment of does not automatically terminate a disabled child’s right to receive . The court directed the father to continue paying Rs. 7,000 per month until it is established that the son can maintain himself.
A Child with Special Needs
The case involves Raghav Lahre, born in to Bharat Lahre and Geetesh Lahre. The parents separated in , and Raghav has been living with his mother ever since. Raghav suffers from Autism Spectrum Disorder and a Speech Disorder—conditions that require specialised education, therapy, and constant medical attention. He attends Akanksha Lions School of Mentally Handicapped in Raipur.
When his mother filed a petition under , the awarded Rs. 7,000 per month but limited the payment until Raghav attained the age of . Aggrieved, the child—through his mother—approached the High Court, arguing that the amount was inadequate and, more fundamentally, that an autistic child’s needs do not vanish at 18.
Quantum Upheld, Duration Corrected
The High Court declined to increase the monthly amount, finding no perversity in the Family Court’s assessment of Raghav’s needs and his father’s financial capacity. However, it squarely addressed the automatic cut‑off at .
“The mere attainment of the age of cannot, by itself, be treated as a circumstance resulting in the of the right to receive in the case of a child who is suffering from a physical or mental abnormality or disability and is ,” the Chief Justice observed.
The court underscored that the relevant test is not age but capacity: “The age of the applicant cannot be the sole determining factor for discontinuance of , particularly when his entitlement is required to be examined in the light of his physical and mental condition and his capacity to maintain himself.”
What the Order Means in Practice
The High Court set aside the restrictive condition and modified the Family Court’s order. The father must continue paying Rs. 7,000 per month even after Raghav turns 18. The only way the obligation can cease is if the father later demonstrates, through before the Family Court, that Raghav has become capable of earning his own livelihood.
The ruling is a significant reminder that —often associated with minor children—extends beyond when the child suffers from a disability that prevents self‑support. It aligns law with the protective spirit of the , which emphasises support for persons with disabilities throughout their lives.
Key Observation
In one of the most pointed passages of the judgment, the court declared:
“The learned Family Court was not justified in pre‑determining that the awarded in favour of the applicant would automatically come to an end upon his attaining the age of . Whether the applicant, upon attaining , would continue to remain on account of his mental condition is a matter which has to be considered on the basis of the circumstances and evidence available at the relevant point of time.”
Final Outcome
The criminal revision was partly allowed. The direction restricting to the pre‑ period was struck down. The father must continue paying Rs. 7,000 per month unless and until the Family Court, on proper evidence, finds that the son is no longer dependent.
The judgment sends a clear message to family courts and litigants alike: a disability‑induced inability to maintain oneself is not cured by a birthday, and the law will not allow obligations to be mechanically terminated at the stroke of midnight on an eighteenth birthday.
