The Delhi High Court recently ruled that a father cannot be absolved of the responsibilities to meet the education expenses of his children simply because they have attained the age of majority. A single judge bench headed by Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with an application for review of the order passed by it in a matrimonial dispute, wherein the husband was directed to pay interim maintenance to the estranged wife to the tune of Rs 15,000 per month till their son completes graduation or starts earning, whichever is earlier. The couple divorced in 2011.
Earlier, a family court had declined to grant maintenance to the wife while directing that their son was entitled for maintenance till he attains majority and the daughter would be entitled to claim maintenance till she gets employment or gets married, whichever is earlier.
The law relating to maintenance comes under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which bestows a right upon the wife, children or parents to claim maintenance from a person who neglects or refuses to maintain despite having sufficient means. According to Section 125(1), if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain (a) his wife; (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child; (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain himself or herself; (d) his father or mother, a magistrate, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, may order a monthly allowance for the maintenance of such a wife, child or parents who are unable to maintain themselves.
It has been frequently observed that Section 125 of CrPC, being a social justice legislation, has to be interpreted liberally to ensure that women and children are protected from a life of potential vagrancy and destitution.
Discussing the objective behind enactment of the Section, the apex court in the case of Kirtikant D Vadodaria vs State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 SCC 479 held: “The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation.”
In light of the above, even though Section 125 of the CrPC has prescribed certain riders for major children to claim maintenance from their father, the father cannot shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities to provide for the education expenses of his children, irrespective of the fact that they have attained majority.
Justice Prasad, while addressing the application, noted that: “This Court cannot shut its eyes to the reality that simply attaining majority does not translate into the understanding that the major son is earning sufficiently. At the age of 18, it can be safely assumed that the son is either graduating from Class XII or is in his first year of college. More often than not, it does not place him in a position wherein he can earn to sustain or maintain himself. It further places the entire burden on the mother to bear the expenses of educating the children without any contribution from the father, and this Court cannot countenance such a situation.”
In a catena of decisions, the apex court and various High Courts have granted maintenance allowance to the child after attaining majority on the ground that the child cannot be disentitled from pursuing further studies to have better future prospects just because the parents are getting divorced.
The top court, in a recent ruling in Chandrashekhar vs Swapnil and Another, had directed the father to provide financial support to his son, not only till the age of majority but till he completes his graduation. The bench orally remarked that in today’s time, it is not enough for a father to maintain his child only till he becomes an adult. It further added that a first degree course is considered a basic education and that a father must provide maintenance till the adult son gets his first formal degree so as to ensure that he becomes a self-supporting individual and can live with dignity.
In the case of Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat vs Ajayveer Chapotkat, the Bombay High Court allowed the application by a major son claiming maintenance from his father on the ground that even after attainment of majority, his age would not be such when he can become economically independent so as to earn a living. The Court observed that the ward of a well-educated and economically sound parent can claim education expenses from his father irrespective of the fact that he has attained majority.
In a similar development, the Madras High Court in T Vimala vs S Ramakrishnan, while noting that daughters could be maintained after attaining majority as a result of Section 20 of the Hindu Marriage Act, had emphasised on how the law imbibed under Section 125 of the CrPC, has to be interpreted liberally so as to include within its ambit the obligation of a father to meet educational expenses of his children.
The Court held: “The very purpose of Section 125 CrPC is also to protect the children from want of roof, food, clothing and necessities of life. Education is an important aspect in children’s life. Amounts need to be spent for it. Those expenses are educational expenses. Every father is bound to provide a good education to his children. No father is expected to produce a criminal or a disorderly person. Thus, he has to bear the educational expenses of his children…. Section 125 CrPC is not only for food for life, it should also be for food for thought. Otherwise, so far as the children are concerned, we will be doing violence to the very object of Section 125 CrPC.”
In the latest case, the bench upheld the maintenance allowance granted to the wife for maintenance of their adult son, and noted that “a father has an equal duty to provide for his children and there cannot be a situation wherein it is only the mother who has to bear the burden of expenses for raising and educating the children.”
“The context of Section 125 CrPC is to ensure that the wife and the children of the husband are not left in a state of destitution after the divorce. The husband must also carry the financial burden of making certain that his children are capable of attaining a position in society wherein they can sufficiently maintain themselves. The mother cannot be burdened with the entire expenditure on the education of her son just because he has completed 18 years of age, and the father cannot be absolved of all responsibilities to meet the education expenses of his son because the son may have attained the age of majority, but may not be financially independent and could be incapable of sustaining himself. A father is bound to compensate the wife who, after spending on children, may hardly be left with anything to maintain herself,” the bench observed.
—By Banshika Garg and India Legal News Service