Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
Abhishek Singh Yadav - Appellant
Versus
State Of Up And Others - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. - 55 of 2024
Decided On : 25-09-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.M. Iqbal Hasan
For the Respondent: G.A., Purushottam Pandey

A minor can be required to pay maintenance obligations upon reaching majority, reflecting the need for reasonable support based on actual income.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 125 and 128 - Application for maintenance - The trial court awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the wife and Rs. 4,000/- to the daughter; appellate court modified to Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 2,000/- respectively from the date of attaining majority. The revisionist argued maintainability due to minority at filing, but court found provisions applicable without guardian involvement; court emphasized husband’s obligations post-majority and reasonable maintenance limits based on earnings. (Paras 4, 25, 30)

(B) Maintenance - Parameters for determination of claims should reflect reasonable needs and protect from undue burden; the court reiterated adherence to established precedents for fair award calculation. (Paras 29)

Facts of the case:
The revisionist, married at 13, had a daughter born thereafter. Maintenance suit was filed when he was still a minor. While the court acknowledged his earlier status, it ruled obligations arise post-majority with maintenance reflecting his capabilities.

Findings of Court:
Original maintenance amounts were excessive and not aligned with judicial guidelines; adjustments made accordingly.

Issues: The court addressed the legal responsibility of minors in maintenance requests, the interpretation of age, and the expectations from the husband post-majority.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that while the changing age of the revisionist affected his obligation, legal and fair maintenance assessments can still occur.

Result: Revision partly allowed with adjusted maintenance amounts.

Table of Content
1. minor revisionist's liability for maintenance. (Para 3 , 4)
2. argument regarding no entitlement to maintenance due to abandonment. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. counterarguments about the validity of claims against a minor. (Para 10 , 11)
4. legal provisions regarding minor's capacity to be sued. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. assessment of revisionist's income for maintenance calculation. (Para 19 , 26 , 28)
6. court's finding on the nature of abandonment. (Para 20 , 23)
7. modification of maintenance amount by the court. (Para 30 , 32)
8. adjustment of excess payment of maintenance. (Para 31)

JUDGMENT :

MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist and the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in the Court today are taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. S.M. Iqbal Hasan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Purushottam Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 22nd November, 2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1546 of 2019 (Smt. Sheela Devi & Another Vs. Abhishek Yadav) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Visharatganj, District-Bareilly, whereby the trial court while allowing the instant application of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that it is no doubt true that the marriage of the revisionist has been solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 10th July, 2016 and from the aforesaid wedlock opposite party no.3 was born on 21st September, 2018. At the time of marriage the revisionist was about 13 years old. It is further submitted that at the time of filing of instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 i.e. 10th February, 2019, the age of the revisionist was about 16 years, which is evident from his high school examination mark-sheet-cum certificate in which his date of birth is mentioned as "1st January, 2003", a copy of which has been brought on record at page 69 of the paper book. He submits that since the revisionist was minor, no maintenance case could be filed or maintainable against a minor, inasmuch as the same could only be filed through his/her guardian according to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 10 and 18 of the Family Court Act, 1984. Qua the issue raised above, the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code is constant, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable. Since the instant application filed by opposite party no.2 against the revisionist when he was minor without impleading his guardian, the execution proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C. pursuant to the judgment passed in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can also not be executed. As such, the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is maintainable against the revisionist as who was minor at the relevant time and also the execution proceedings initiated against the revisionist cannot be legally sustained is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist again submits that since the opposite party no.2 has refused to live with her husband i.e. the revisionist without any sufficient cause, therefore, as per Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. she is not entitled to get any maintenance allowance from him.

6. The learned counsel for the revisionist next submits that the revisionist is a student and he has no source of income, he is dependent upon his parents, whereas the trial court without appreciating evidence available on record with regar