Can a Minor Husband Be Forced to Pay Maintenance? Allahabad HC Clarifies
The Allahabad High Court holds that even a minor husband is liable for maintenance under CrPC Section 125 but from the date he attains majority
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a husband who was a minor at the time his wife sought maintenance cannot be compelled to pay allowance for that period, but becomes liable once he attains majority.
Modifying a Bareilly family court’s order, the high court reduced the maintenance amount from Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 4,500 per month, payable from January 2021, when the man turned 18.
The couple's marriage was solemnised on July 10, 2016. Their daughter was born on September 21, 2018. In February 2019, the wife moved the family court seeking maintenance for herself and the child under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). In November 2023, the court directed the man to pay Rs. 5,000 to his wife and Rs. 4,000 to his daughter every month from the date of the application.
Challenging this decision, the man approached the Allahabad High Court, arguing that he was a minor both at the time of his marriage and when the maintenance plea was filed. He produced his high school certificate showing his date of birth as January 1, 2003, making him just 13 at marriage and 16 when proceedings began. He claimed that no case under Section 125 CrPC could be filed against a minor without impleading a guardian.
His counsel further contended that his wife had left him without sufficient cause, which under Section 125(4) disentitled her from claiming support. It was also argued that he was a student without income, and the family court erred in assuming that he earned between Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 30,000 a month. Even if he worked, his potential income was pegged at Rs. 10,000 per month, making the Rs.9,000 maintenance order “excessive and exorbitant.”
Opposing these submissions, the wife’s counsel and the State insisted that a husband cannot shirk his responsibility towards his wife and minor child. They pointed out that the family possessed agricultural land, a tractor, and a car, indicating financial capacity. They also stressed that she had left the matrimonial home due to dowry harassment, which was a sufficient ground to live separately.
The bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh, after hearing both sides, observed that Section 125 CrPC contains no bar on proceedings against a minor husband. However, he acknowledged that until the man attained majority on January 1, 2021, he could not be presumed to have “sufficient means” to provide support. Court therefore held him liable to pay maintenance only after that date.
On the question of quantum, court rejected the family court’s assessment of income. Instead, it estimated the man’s potential earning capacity as an able-bodied man at Rs. 18,000 per month, equivalent to daily wage labour. Applying the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) and Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari (1970), which cap maintenance at 25% of net income, the high court fixed the allowance at Rs. 2,500 per month for the wife and Rs. 2,000 for the daughter.
The arrears were directed to be recalculated on this basis, with any excess payment adjusted in future installments.
Case Title: Abhishek Singh Yadav vs State of UP and Others
Order Date: September 25, 2025
Bench: Justice Madan Pal Singh