Father's Maintenance Obligation Continues For Severely Disabled Son Even After He Attains Majority: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that a father's obligation to maintain a major child who is unable to maintain himself due to physical or mental abnormality does not automatically cease upon the child attaining majority.
Justice Uday Kumar made the observation while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging orders of a Magistrate permitting continuation of maintenance proceedings concerning his major son, who suffers from 70% to 75% orthopaedic disability.
The Court held that the transition from minority to majority, coupled with continuing disability and inability to sustain oneself, can be addressed through proceedings under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which permits alteration of a maintenance allowance upon a change in circumstances.
The case arose from maintenance proceedings initiated in 2005 by Tumpa Pramanick against her husband, Samit Pramanick, under Section 125 CrPC, seeking maintenance for herself and their minor son, Sudipta Pramanick.
The Trial Court subsequently rejected the wife's personal claim after finding that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnised during the subsistence of his earlier marriage. However, it granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month for the couple's minor son, who was disabled. The husband's challenge to that order was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of the High Court in 2016.
After the son attained majority, the mother filed an application under Section 127 CrPC seeking modification and continuation of the maintenance, citing his 70% to 75% orthopaedic disability and inability to maintain himself independently.
The husband challenged the maintainability of the proceedings, arguing that once the son became a major, the mother's locus standi ceased and that a fresh proceeding was required. He also relied upon the Supreme Court's directions concerning disclosure of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings.
The High Court rejected these arguments.
'Majority does not automatically extinguish maintenance entitlement'
The Court examined Section 125(1)(c) CrPC and noted that its statutory scheme extends protection to a major child, other than a married daughter, who is unable to maintain himself by reason of physical or mental abnormality or injury.
It held that requiring a severely disabled adult to initiate an entirely fresh proceeding merely because he crossed the age of majority would defeat the remedial purpose of the provision.
The Court observed: “The transition from minority to majority coupled with a continuing 70% to 75% orthopaedic disability constitutes a profound change in legal and physical status, perfectly amenable to alteration and continuation of the order of maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C.”
The Court noted that the son's disability was established through birth records and medical reports.
It rejected the husband's argument that the son's ability to walk independently or his completion of an ITI vocational course demonstrated that he was capable of maintaining himself.
The Court observed that vocational training or the ability to move independently does not necessarily establish employability, financial independence or the ability to sustain oneself in the competitive job market.
Mother can represent disabled adult child
The Court also rejected the challenge to the mother's locus standi.
It held that a parent or close relative acting as a next friend to ventilate the rights of a disabled adult is a recognised aspect of access to justice.
The Court observed: “A person grappling with a 70% to 75% orthopaedic disability cannot be cast out of the portals of justice on procedural pedantry.”
Asset disclosure affidavits not fatal to continuation proceeding
The husband had also relied upon Rajnesh v. Neha and Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma to argue that failure to file affidavits of assets and liabilities vitiated the proceedings.
The High Court found the reliance misplaced.
It noted that the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000 per month had already been fixed in 2012 and the order had been affirmed by the High Court in 2016.
The Section 127 proceeding, according to the Court, was not a fresh claim for an enhanced amount based on a change in the husband's income, but concerned continuation of protection for a disabled adult dependent.
The Court therefore held that the asset disclosure guidelines governing assessment of financial capacity in contested maintenance proceedings could not be used as a “technical procedural tripwire” to defeat the maintainability of the continuation proceeding.
The High Court also took note of the record concerning alleged non-payment of maintenance arrears and pending execution proceedings.
It found that the husband had raised similar objections regarding his son's majority and the mother's locus standi despite an earlier rejection of those objections by the Trial Court.
The Court termed the repeated objections a “textbook instance of abuse of the judicial process” and upheld the Trial Court's imposition of nominal costs of Rs. 500.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the maintenance obligation is not an unconditional lifetime obligation.
It held that the father would remain legally bound to maintain his severely disabled major son for as long as the disability persists and the son remains unable to maintain himself.
However, Section 127 CrPC provides a mechanism for modification or cancellation if there is a genuine material change in circumstances. The Court said such modification would require concrete evidence of actual financial self-sufficiency and gainful employment, rather than assumptions based merely on vocational training.
The Court accordingly dismissed CRR No. 534 of 2023 and affirmed the Magistrate's orders dated March 31, 2022 and January 10, 2023.
It further directed the Trial Court to expedite the pending execution proceedings, ensure compliance with payment of arrears and costs, and proceed with recording evidence without granting unwarranted adjournments to the husband.
Case: Samit Pramanick v. State of West Bengal & Ors., CRR 534 of 2023