Children are entitled to maintenance till majority unless incapacitated; Family Courts maintain distinction for claims post-majority.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Petitioners have approached this Court against the dismissal of their application for enhancement of maintenance vide order dated 07.03.2024 passed in Petition No.24/22/18 by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.

2. Petitioners herein are children of respondent No.1 Vijay Kapur and proforma respondent No.2 Neelam Kumari. The dates of birth of petitioner No.1 Rishita Kapur and petitioner No.2 Suchet Kapur are 01.08.1998 and 17.03.2002, respectively. They have attained majority on 01.08.2016 and 17.03.2020, respectively.

3. According to the petitioners, petitioner No.1 is pursuing her study of Ph.D from H.P. Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Palampur, District Kangra and petitioner No.2 is doing B.Tech from Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (Punjab). It has been submitted that for financial constraints, their studies are bound to be adversely affected and disrupted.

4. In an application preferred by proforma respondent No.2 Neelam Kumari and present petitioners, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., against respondent Vijay Kapur, for grant of maintenance allowance, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarkaghat, vide order 09.07.2012 had awarded Rs.2000/- per month maintenance to each of the applicants.

5. In revision petition preferred against the aforesaid order, Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mandi, Camp at Sarkaghat vide order dated 20.03.2015 had enhanced maintenance from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. Subsequently, the aforesaid maintenance allowance was enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- per month in Lok Adalat on 22.07.2017.

6. Thereafter, on 02.07.2018, proforma respondent Neelam Kumari and petitioners preferred a petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for further enhancement of the maintenance allowance.

7. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sarkaghat, allowed the enhancement from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month with respect to proforma respondent No.2, but dismissed the claim of enhancement of maintenance qua petitioners on the ground that they have attained the age of majority.

8. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and corresponding Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, provides pari materia provisions with respect to entitlement of wife and children for maintenance, if any person having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself; (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself; and (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself.

9. From the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that a child (legitimate or illegitimate) is entitled for maintenance from father before attaining the age of majority and after attaining such majority, only that child (legitimate or illegitimate) shall be entitled for maintenance, who because of physical or mental abnormality or injury is unable to maintain itself.

10. In the present case, petitioners are legitimate children of respondent No.1 and proforma respondent No.2. They are not suffering any physical or mental abnormality or injury so as to render them incapable to maintain.

11. In view of provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C., petitioners were legally entitled for maintenance till attaining the age of majority. Therefore, petitioner No.1(daughter) was entitled for maintenance from her father under Section 125 Cr.P.C. till 01.08.2016, whereas, petitioner No.2 (son) was entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. till 17.03.2020.

12. At the time of filing application for enhancement on 02.07.2018, petitioner No.1 (daughter) was already major for attaining the age of majority on 01.08.2016. However, petitioner No.2 (son) was minor till 17.03.2020.

13. Family Court keeping in view the index of price of essential commodities as well as salary of respondent No.1 and other circumstances has enhanc