Abhishek Singh Yadav v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others, 2025
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.
Judgement Details
Court
Allahabad High Court
Date of Decision
26 September 2025
Judges
Justice Madan Pal Singh
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
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).
Issues
-
Can an application under Sections 125 and 128 CrPC for maintenance be filed against a minor husband?
-
Is the wife entitled to maintenance despite refusing to live with the minor husband?
-
What is the appropriate amount of maintenance payable given the minor status and earning capacity of the husband?
-
Should the matter be remanded back to the trial court or decided by the High Court?
Held
-
The Maintenance applications under Sections 125 and 128 CrPC are maintainable against minors.
-
The minor husband is liable to pay maintenance after attaining majority.
-
The wife is entitled to maintenance despite her refusal to live with the husband due to justified reasons.
-
The Court reduced the maintenance to Rs. 4,500 per month in total, proportionate to the husband’s assumed income.
-
The High Court decision upheld the principle that maintenance must be just and reasonable.
Analysis
-
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.