Under the relevant statute, the obligation to provide maintenance to a child concludes upon the attainment of majority, unless the child suffers from a physical or mental abnormality that prevents them from supporting themselves.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Heard Dr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. The instant criminal revision petition arises out of the impugned order dated 26.05.2025 in the F.C (Criminal) Case No.462/2017 (under Section 125 of the Cr.PC, 1973).

3. As per the version of the petitioner, the marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals in the month of January 1997 and out of this wedlock three children were born. Since 2013, the respondent has been alleging an affair of the petitioner with his own brother and he filed a case for decree of divorce vide F.C. (Civil) Case No.741/2013 which was later on withdrawn by him in the year 2016 to persuade the petitioner wife to withdraw her domestic violence case vide C.R. (D.V.) Case No.16/2104 which was also withdrawn on a promise to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to her by the respondent which the respondent stopped paying eventually. Hence, the petitioner preferred the F. C. (Criminal) Case No.4462/2017 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Principal Judge Family Court-I, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati passed the impugned order dated 26-05-2025 by which the learned trial court passed order for maintenance for the petitioner and her three children. However, the learned trial court did not pass any maintenance for the son beyond his attainment of majority who is pursuing his graduation. Hence, this instant criminal revision.

4. The only substantive prayer in the instant revision is for setting aside of the impugned order to the extent of granting maintenance to the younger son of the parties only till attainment of majority and to extend maintenance to the said son till such time as he continues his studies or starts earning, whichever is earlier and also for enhancing the amount of maintenance to Rs. 15,000/- per month.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a student who has completed the age of 18 years and is pursuing graduate studies for which maintenance is required beyond the age of majority.

6. In support of his aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandrashekar Vs. Swapnil and Anr. , reported in 2021 12 SCC 624, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, in exercise of powers under Section 142 of the Constitution, directed, in the interest of justice, to pay maintenance to the child of the appellant until he completes his first-degree course following the High School Board Examinations.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a decision of the Delhi High Court in Urvashi Agarwal and others Vs. Indarpal Agarwal , reported in Manu/DE/1091/2021 dated 14.06.2021, wherein a learned Single Judge of the said High Court had held that it cannot be said that the obligation of a father would come to an end when his son reaches 18 years of age and the entire burden of his education and other expenses would fall only on the mother in view of the rising cost of living and it is not reasonable to expect that the mother alone would bear the entire burden for herself and for her son from the maintenance given by the husband’s father, and accordingly directed interim maintenance from the date of attaining majority till completion of graduation or commencement of earning, whichever is earlier.

8. Section 125(1) Cr.PC mandates four categories of persons who would be entitled to maintenance as follows :-

125. Order for m