Abhishek Singh Yadav v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others, 2025

The husband (revisionist) was married at age 13 to the wife (opposite party no. 2).

Two years later, their daughter (opposite party no. 3) was born.

At age 16, the wife filed a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from the minor husband.

The Family Court granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000 for the wife and Rs. 4000 for the child.

The husband challenged the order, arguing that since he was a minor, no application under Section 125 CrPC could be filed against him directly; it should have been filed through his guardian.

The husband also claimed the wife refused to live with him without reasonable cause, which should disentitle her from maintenance under Section 125(4).

The Court held there is no legal bar to entertain applications for maintenance under Sections 125 and 128 CrPC filed against minors.

The Code of Criminal Procedure does not mandate that applications against minors be filed through guardians.

Section 125 CrPC provides that anyone having means who refuses to maintain his wife or child can be compelled to pay maintenance, regardless of age.

Though the husband was a minor at the time of the application, he had attained majority by the date of the judgment.

The Court doubted that a minor dependent on parents could maintain his wife and child, but after attaining majority, the husband must bear responsibility for maintenance.

The wife’s refusal to live with the husband was justified on grounds of cruelty and dowry demand, so she was entitled to maintenance.

The Court assumed the husband’s monthly income as Rs. 18,000 (assuming he is a labourer after majority).

Maintenance was reduced to Rs. 2,500 per month for the wife and Rs. 2,000 for the child (total Rs. 4,500), which is 25% of his income, in line with the Supreme Court ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha.

The arrears, if any, should be calculated according to the revised maintenance amount fixed by the High Court.

The Court chose not to remit the case back to the trial court to avoid delay and pendency.

This judgment clarifies that minority is not a bar to filing maintenance claims under Sections 125 and 128 CrPC, removing any procedural ambiguity about applications against minors.

It emphasizes that the key consideration in maintenance cases is the means of the respondent and welfare of the dependent, not the respondent’s age alone.

The ruling aligns with the broader protective purpose of the CrPC maintenance provisions, ensuring dependents are not left destitute.

The Court balanced the husband’s status as a minor and his income capacity with the rights of the wife and child to receive maintenance.

The judgment also reflects sensitivity to the social realities of child marriage and seeks to enforce responsibilities once the minor attains majority.

It relies on Supreme Court precedent (Rajnesh v. Neha) for proportional maintenance, promoting consistency in legal standards.

By not remanding the case, the Court streamlined the process, aiming to reduce delays in family law matters.