In a significant ruling on maintenance under criminal law, the Gauhati High Court declined to extend financial support to a son who had already attained majority, emphasizing the limits set by statute.
Background of the Case
The case, Smt. Boby Das vs Sri Kantiram Das (Crl. Rev. P. 234/2025), arose from a family dispute over maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The petitioner-wife argued that her son, though over 18, was still pursuing graduation and needed continued financial support. She also sought enhancement of the maintenance amount to ₹15,000 per month.
Read also:- Supreme Court Revives ₹50 Crore Cheque Bounce Case, Says Trial Cannot Be Skipped
Earlier, the Family Court had granted maintenance for the wife and children but limited the son’s entitlement only till he attained majority.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma examined whether maintenance could be extended beyond the age of 18. The court referred to Section 125 CrPC and noted that the law clearly defines who is entitled to maintenance.
“The statute has curtailed the period of maintenance to the child till he or she attains majority,” the bench observed.
Read also:- Wife’s False Complaints Amount to Mental Cruelty, Divorce Stands: Calcutta High Court
The court clarified that maintenance beyond majority is allowed only in specific situations such as when the child suffers from physical or mental incapacity and cannot support themselves.
Addressing the petitioner’s reliance on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court rulings, the bench pointed out that such directions were issued under special constitutional powers.
“The High Court… cannot issue a direction that is plainly contrary to law,” it said.
Read also:- Kerala HC Accepts Apology but Cracks Down on Posts, Seeks Report in Major Tender Case
The court held that since the son had already attained majority in 2021 and did not fall under any exception, he was not legally entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Rejecting the plea for extension and enhancement of maintenance, the High Court concluded that there was no merit in the revision petition.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: Smt. Boby Das vs Sri Kantiram Das
Case Number: Crl. Rev. P. 234/2025
Judge: Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
Decision Date: 06 April 2026
