Adult offspring entitled to interim maintenance till attaining financial stability, rules HC

The court said that gainful employment in today’s competitive world may be feasible only after the child has pursued education beyond 18 years of age

New Delhi

The HC upheld the ruling of a family court, allotting enhanced compensation to wife and child. (Representative photo)

The Delhi high court on Thursday held that an adult offspring is entitled to interim maintenance till he is studying and is not financially stable, under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).

While Section 26 of HMA enables the court to pass interim orders with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, the court said that gainful employment in today’s competitive world may be feasible only after the child has pursued education beyond 18 years of age and thus, the scope of education under the said provision cannot be restricted.

“A child who is pursuing his education would be entitled to maintenance under Section 26 of the HMA, even after he attains the age of majority, till the time he is pursuing his education and is not financially independent... Mostly, the child would have cleared his high school (Class 12) at the age of 18 years and would be looking to join a college/university for further studies. It is only after completion of a college/university degree and in some cases, completing a postgraduation/professional degree, would the child be able to secure employment,” a bench led by justice Rajiv Shakdher, and comprising justice Amit Bansal, said.

The bench said, “In fact, it can safely be concluded that in today’s competitive world, gainful employment may be feasible only after the child has pursued education beyond 18 years of age... Therefore, the scope of education in Section 26 of the HMA cannot be restricted only till the time the child attains the age of 18 years.”

The court enhanced the scope of Section 26 while dealing with a cross-appeals plea filed by a couple challenging the family court’s August 16, 2018, order directing the husband to pay ₹1.15 lakh per month to his wife and ₹35,000 to his son till the time he attains the age of 26 or becomes financially independent, whichever is earlier.

The family court had ruled that the wife and the son were entitled to enhanced maintenance in view of the increased expenditure of the growing child and as per the wife’s requirements commensurate with her social status. The court had also ruled that the wife’s application for enhanced interim maintenance could not be decided in a timely manner since the husband had adopted delay tactics.

The husband had sought to set aside the judgment, and the wife had sought to enhance the interim maintenance.

In this case, the couple got married in December 1998 and had a son from their wedlock in May 2001. They started living separately in January 2004 and the husband later filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty. However, the husband, during the pendency of the wife’s application for enhanced interim maintenance, withdrew the divorce petition in 2016.

The husband, represented through senior advocate YP Narula, argued that only minor children were entitled to maintenance under Section 26 of the HMA and thus, the family court could not have granted maintenance to the son till the age of 26 years.

The wife, represented by advocate Anu Narula, argued that her husband’s salary, perks, allowances and bonuses were more than ₹4 lakh per month. Narula contended that the requirements of her client and her son increased manifold since the court decided the previous application for maintenance. She added that the family court rightly held that a child, even after attaining the age of 18 years, can be entitled to maintenance till he starts working and earning or till his studies are complete.

The husband contended that the family court would become functus officio (jurisdiction of the designated authority comes to an end once he has performed his functions for which he was appointed) after the withdrawal of the divorce petition in 2016 and hence, could not adjudicate the applications for interim maintenance filed in 2009.

Rejecting the contention, the court held that the family court, despite the withdrawal of the divorce petition, is competent to adjudicate the application for interim maintenance from the date the said application was filed till the withdrawal of the divorce petition.

In its 29-page ruling, the bench upheld the family court’s order and directed the husband to pay an enhanced maintenance of ₹1.45 lakh to the wife from the date of filing the enhancement application till the date of withdrawal of the divorce petition. “Taking a holistic view, in our considered view, the amounts claimed by the Wife in her enhancement application totalling Rs.1,45,000/- per month seems to be just and reasonable taking into account the financial position of the Husband and the fact that the Wife is unemployed,” the court said.