Father Can’t Claim Refund for Maintenance Paid After Children Turned 18: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The division bench of Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Sushil Kukreja passed the order in a criminal revision plea filed by the children against an order of the Family Court, Sarkaghat, which had dismissed their application for enhanced maintenance while increasing their mother’s allowance.

The family court had rejected their claim for increased maintenance, observing that both had attained majority and were therefore no longer entitled to support under Section 125 CrPC.

The siblings, however, contended that they were still students, the daughter pursuing a PhD and the son studying B.Tech, and that their education was being hindered due to financial hardship.

Tracing the history of the dispute, the high court noted that the maintenance proceedings began in 2012, when a magistrate awarded Rs. 2,000 per month to each of the three, the mother and the two children. This was increased to Rs. 3,000 by the Additional Sessions Judge in 2015, and further to Rs. 4,000 in 2017 by mutual settlement in a Lok Adalat.

In 2018, the mother and her children filed a fresh plea for enhancement under Section 127 CrPC, citing rising living costs and the father’s improved financial position. The family court later enhanced only the mother’s allowance to Rs. 8,000 per month, denying any increase to the children.

While upholding the family court’s decision regarding the daughter, the high court found that the son had still been a minor at the time of the application in July 2018 and attained majority only on March 17, 2020. Therefore, he was legally entitled to enhanced maintenance until that date.

The bench ordered that the son be paid Rs. 8,000 per month as maintenance from July 2, 2018, to March 17, 2020, directing the father to clear arrears by October 15, 2025. It clarified that even if the father had continued paying maintenance after the children became majors, he could not seek reimbursement or adjustment, observing that a father has a moral obligation to support his children, especially when they are completing their education.

"In case respondent No.1 has paid maintenance to petitioners No.1 and 2 even after attaining the age of majority by them, even then, he shall not be entitled to recover the same or adjust it against maintenance payable to either of child or proforma respondent No.2 because being a father, even if, he has no legal duty, but has a moral obligation and duty as a father to ensure maintenance to his children, particularly, when they are at the verge of completing their education as any order to refund the amount paid in excess to the children would hamper the future prospects of the petitioners," the order stated. 

Rejecting the daughter’s claim, court referred to Section 125 CrPC and Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which extend maintenance only to minors or major children with disabilities. However, it noted that under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, an unmarried daughter unable to sustain herself may still claim maintenance from her father irrespective of age.

Concluding that there was “no infirmity” in the denial of maintenance to the daughter, the bench partly allowed the petition, affirming the son’s right to enhanced maintenance and protecting the sums already paid.

Court also clarified that the children’s rejection under Section 125 CrPC would not prevent them from seeking maintenance or property rights under other applicable laws.

Case Title: Rishita Kapur and Another vs Vijay Kapur and Another

Order Date: September 12, 2025

Bench: Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Sushil Kukreja