The obligation of the father to provide maintenance to his son does not end when the son attains majority if he is not able to sustain himself.

Urvashi Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. Inderpaul Aggarwal Crl. Rev. P. 549/2018 decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 14.06.2021.

Facts of the case-
The petitioner No. 1 (wife) and the Respondent are both government employees and got married in 1997 and out of wedlock Petitioner No. 2 and 3 were born. Dispute arose between the couple and Petitioner filed for maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C and the husband instituted a suit for divorce. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the Petitioner No. 1 sought maintenance u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The family Court vide order dated 21.04.2018 declined maintenance to the Petitioner No. 1 and in regard to the Petitioner No. 2 & 3, the Ld. Court directed that the Petitioner No. 2 (son) would be entitled to maintenance till he attains majority and the Petitioner No. 3 (daughter) would be entitled to maintenance till she gets employment or gets married.
The Petitioner No. 1 contended that the Ld. Family Court has erred in limiting the maintenance be to be given to the petitioner No. 2/son till he attains the age of the majority as the responsibility of a father to take care of his child does not cease after the child attains majority if the child is not able to sustain himself.

Observations of the Hon’ble Court-
The Court noted that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments, is to bring down the agony and financial suffering of a women who left her matrimonial home so that some arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and her child. Since the purpose of granting interim maintenance is to ensure that the wife and the children are not put to starvation, the Courts while fixing interim maintenance are not expected to dwell into minute and excruciating details and facts which have to be proved by the parties.
The Court observed that the entire expenditure of Petitioner No. 2/son is now being borne by the Petitioner No. 1 as he has now attained majority but is not earning because he is still studying. The Ld. Family Court therefore failed to see that since no contribution is being made by the respondent herein towards the petitioner No.2, the salary earned by the petitioner No.1 would not be sufficient for the petitioner No.1 to maintain herself.
The Court further observed that ‘it cannot shut its eyes to the fact that at the age of 18 the education of petitioner No.2 is not yet over, and the petitioner No. 2 cannot sustain himself. The petitioner No.2 would have barely passed his 12th Standard on completing 18 years of age and therefore the petitioner No.1 has to look after the petitioner No.2 and bear his entire expenses. 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. The Court cannot shut its eyes to the rising cost of living. It is not reasonable to expect that the mother alone would bear the entire burden for herself and for the son with the small amount of maintenance given by the respondent herein towards the maintenance of his daughter. The amount earned by the petitioner No.1 will not be sufficient for the family of three, i.e. the mother and two children to sustain themselves.
The Court, therefore, granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the petitioner No.1 from the date of petitioner No.2 attaining the age of majority till he completes his graduation or starts earning whichever is earlier and further directed the Family Court to dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible within 12 months. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is partly allowed.