Chhattisgarh HC: Age of Majority Cannot Auto-End Maintenance for Child with Autism and Speech Disorder

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha modified a Family Court order that cut off maintenance once Raghav Lahre turned 18, holding disability must govern entitlement, not age alone.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has held that attaining the age of majority cannot, by itself, terminate a disabled child's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, sitting singly, partly allowed a criminal revision filed on behalf of Raghav Lahre, a 14-year-old boy diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Speech Disorder, and set aside the age-of-majority cut-off that the 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg had imposed. The maintenance amount of Rs.7,000 per month was left undisturbed. The court directed that payments must continue even after Raghav turns 18, unless the Family Court finds on cogent evidence that he has become capable of earning his livelihood.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Raghav was born on 11 May 2012 to Bharat Lahre and Smt. Geetesh Lahre. The couple married on 14 June 2006 at District Durg under Hindu customary rites. The marriage broke down and Geetesh left the matrimonial home on 25 May 2015, taking Raghav with her. Custody of the child was formally granted to her by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Katghora, District Korba, vide order dated 23 November 2015.

The applicant's case before the Family Court was that Bharat Lahre had been addicted to excessive liquor and, when Raghav was about one year old, allegedly poured liquor into the child's mouth on several occasions, causing serious physical consequences that affected his speech. Despite medical treatment, Raghav developed Speech Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder. He now studies at Akanksha Lions School of Mentally Handicapped, Raipur, and requires specialised education, continuous care and medical attention. All expenses — education, transportation, uniform, books, therapy and day-to-day needs — were being borne entirely by his mother.

Raghav, through his mother as natural guardian, filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Durg, registered as M.J.C. No.277/2020, seeking Rs.30,000 per month. An application for interim maintenance at the same figure was also filed. By order dated 20 January 2023, the Family Court directed Bharat Lahre to pay Rs.7,000 per month as interim maintenance from the date of filing the application.

After completion of proceedings and recording of evidence, the Family Court passed the impugned order on 9 July 2026. It partly allowed the Section 125 application and directed payment of Rs.7,000 per month — but only from the date of that order and only until Raghav attains the age of majority. Raghav's revision to the High Court challenged both the quantum and the age-of-majority restriction.

The Legal Issue

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. obliges a person to maintain, among others, a child unable to maintain itself. The provision does not restrict this obligation solely by age; it extends to children who are unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormality or injury. The revision raised a pointed question: can a Family Court pre-determine that maintenance will cease upon the child's eighteenth birthday, regardless of whether the child's disability will persist beyond that date?

Bharat Lahre's counsel defended the Family Court's quantum, arguing it was properly assessed on the evidence and that no interference was warranted. He did not separately address the age-of-majority restriction beyond generally supporting the impugned order.

On the counsel-of-record issue, Bharat Lahre's advocate, Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, appeared but submitted he had no instructions, suggesting the matter belonged to another advocate. The court rejected this, noting that Mr. Khichariya had signed the composite Vakalatnama on behalf of the non-applicant. The court accordingly proceeded to hear the revision on the submissions made and the material on record.

How the Chief Justice Reasoned

Chief Justice Sinha addressed the two grounds of challenge separately.

On quantum, he declined to interfere. The determination of maintenance depends on the claimant's needs and the financial capacity of the person liable — both of which the Family Court had weighed. The court found no patent illegality or perversity in fixing Rs.7,000 per month that would justify revisional intervention.

On the age-of-majority restriction, the court took a different view. It found substance in the applicant's grievance. The material on record included a disability certificate indicating Autism Spectrum Disorder and Speech Disorder. Given this, the court held that the applicant may require continued care and support even after turning 18.

The court set out the governing principle plainly: “the age of the applicant cannot be the sole determining factor for discontinuance of maintenance.” The relevant inquiry is not when the child turns 18, but whether, at any given point, that person is capable of maintaining himself and earning his livelihood. Whether Raghav would remain unable to maintain himself after majority is a question that must be assessed on the circumstances and evidence available at that future point in time.

Chief Justice Sinha held that the Family Court was not justified in pre-determining that maintenance would automatically end on the date of majority. The condition could not be sustained and deserved to be set aside.

What the Directions Require

The court modified the impugned order dated 9 July 2026 to a limited extent. The award of Rs.7,000 per month is maintained and is not disturbed. The condition restricting payment only until Raghav attains the age of majority is set aside.

Bharat Lahre must continue paying Rs.7,000 per month even after Raghav turns 18. This obligation will persist unless and until it is established before the Family Court — on cogent and reliable evidence — that Raghav has become capable of maintaining himself and earning his livelihood. The burden of establishing that changed circumstance rests on the non-applicant in any future proceedings before the Family Court.

A certified copy of the order is to be transmitted to the Family Court, Durg, for information and compliance.

Outcome

CRR No.1046 of 2026 is partly allowed. The order dated 9 July 2026 of the 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in M.J.C. No.277/2020 stands modified: the maintenance of Rs.7,000 per month continues without an age-of-majority cut-off, subject only to a future finding by the Family Court on cogent evidence that Raghav Lahre has become capable of self-maintenance.