The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the continuation of maintenance proceedings for a major son suffering from 70% to 75% physical disability. Justice Uday Kumar held that attaining majority does not by itself end the statutory protection available to a child who remains unable to maintain himself because of physical or mental abnormality.
The dispute originated in 2005, when Tumpa Pramanick initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son, Sudipta Pramanick. In 2012, the Trial Court rejected her personal maintenance claim but directed the husband to pay Rs. 3,000 per month for their disabled son. The husband later challenged the maintenance direction in CRR No. 77 of 2014, which was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court on November 22, 2016.
After the son attained majority, the mother moved an application under Section 127 CrPC seeking continuation and modification of the maintenance on the ground that he had a 70% to 75% orthopaedic disability and remained incapable of independent sustenance. The father challenged the maintainability of the proceedings, arguing that the son had become a major, had completed Higher Secondary education and was pursuing an ITI course.
The High Court rejected the argument that maintenance automatically ends when a disabled child attains majority. Justice Uday Kumar 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 further noted that the son's ITI qualification or ability to walk independently could not, by itself, establish that he was financially independent or capable of sustaining himself in the competitive employment market.
On the mother's locus standi, the Court held that a parent or close relative could act as a next friend to protect the rights of a disabled adult. It observed:
"A person grappling with a 70% to 75% orthopaedic disability cannot be cast out of the portals of justice on procedural pedantry."
The Court also rejected the petitioner's reliance on the asset-disclosure requirements discussed in Rajnesh v. Neha and Aditi alias Miti v. Jiti Sharma, noting that those guidelines concern assessment of financial capacity and maintenance quantum, whereas the Rs. 3,000 monthly maintenance amount had already been fixed in 2012 and affirmed by the High Court.
The High Court found no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Trial Court's orders dated March 31, 2022 and January 10, 2023. It dismissed C.R.R. No. 534 of 2023 and affirmed both orders. The Trial Court was also directed to expedite the pending execution proceedings and ensure compliance regarding arrears and costs.
Case Title: Samit Pramanick v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: CRR 534 of 2023
