The maintenance obligation of a parent ordinarily runs until the child attains majority — but the statute itself makes an exception that is often overlooked. On 21 September 2026, Justice Uday Kumar of the Calcutta High Court, in Samit Pramanick v. State of West Bengal & Ors., CRR 534 of 2023, dismissed a father's revision against orders continuing maintenance for his son, who suffers from a 70 to 75 per cent orthopaedic disability, after the son attained majority. The judgment is a clear modern statement of the proviso to Section 125(1) CrPC: a major child who, by reason of physical or mental abnormality or injury, is unable to maintain himself remains entitled to maintenance from a parent of sufficient means.
The facts
Maintenance of ₹3,000 per month had been awarded for the son in 2012 under Section 125 CrPC. The son, born in November 2001, suffers from a 70 to 75 per cent orthopaedic disability. After he attained majority, his mother applied under Section 127 CrPC for continuation and modification of the allowance on his behalf. The father resisted on three fronts: the son was now a major; he had undergone vocational training and could maintain himself; and the mother had no standing to pursue the claim for an adult son. The courts below rejected these objections, and the father invoked the High Court\'s revisional jurisdiction.
The holding
The revision was dismissed and the orders below affirmed. Three propositions emerge from the judgment.
The statutory architecture
| Provision | Content |
|---|---|
| Section 125(1)(b) CrPC / 144(1)(b) BNSS | Maintenance for a minor child, married or unmarried, unable to maintain itself. |
| Section 125(1)(c) CrPC / 144(1)(c) BNSS | Maintenance for a major child (other than a married daughter) unable to maintain himself or herself by reason of physical or mental abnormality or injury. |
| Section 127 CrPC / 146 BNSS | Alteration of the allowance on proof of a change in the circumstances of either party. |
| Section 20(3), Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 | Parallel personal-law obligation to maintain a child so long as the child is unable to maintain himself or herself out of own earnings or property — invoked in civil proceedings. |
Why the vocational-training argument failed
The father\'s case rested on the son\'s vocational training as proof of self-sufficiency. The Court\'s approach treats the statutory test as one of actual capacity to maintain oneself, not of formal qualification. A severe orthopaedic disability that forecloses regular employment is not answered by a certificate of training; the enquiry is whether the child can, in fact, earn a livelihood. Parents resisting such claims must therefore establish real earning, or a realistic and available avenue of earning — not aspiration.
The practice point
Families of disabled children should obtain and periodically renew the statutory disability certificate, and move under Section 146 BNSS before the child attains majority so that continuation is on record rather than left to argument. In Delhi, the same claims run before the Family Courts under Section 144 BNSS, and the personal-law route under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act remains available where lump-sum or property-based provision is more appropriate than a monthly allowance.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does child maintenance always end at eighteen?
No. Under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC — carried forward in Section 144(1)(c) of the BNSS, 2023 — a legitimate or illegitimate child who has attained majority remains entitled to maintenance where, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, the child is unable to maintain himself or herself. The disability, not the birthday, is the operative fact.
Can the mother pursue the claim on behalf of a major disabled son?
Yes. The High Court upheld the mother's standing as natural guardian to prosecute the continuation application on behalf of her disabled major son. Requiring a severely disabled adult to litigate personally would defeat the protective purpose of the provision.
Was Section 127 CrPC the right procedure?
The Court held it was. The son's attaining majority while remaining disabled was a change in circumstances, and Section 127 CrPC (now Section 146 BNSS) — which permits alteration of a maintenance allowance on proof of a change in circumstances — was an appropriate vehicle for continuing and modifying the earlier order rather than forcing a fresh proceeding.
What evidence matters in such cases?
A disability certificate from the competent medical board stating the nature and percentage of disability, medical records showing the effect on earning capacity, evidence of the parent's means, and material on the child's actual expenses. Vocational training by itself does not establish an ability to be self-supporting; the question is real earning capacity.