Justice Madan Pal Singh, Allahabad HC, draws a line between law and emotion, saying: A child husband can’t be punished for obligations he couldn’t legally fulfil.
Allahabad High Court Maintenance Order: In a powerful and precedent setting decision, the Allahabad High Court has declared that a husband who was a minor at the time his wife filed for maintenance cannot be compelled to pay for that period. The ruling in Abhishek Singh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others has been hailed as a moment of legal sanity affirming that child grooms cannot be punished for obligations they were never old enough to fulfil.
Delivering the verdict, Justice Madan Pal Singh corrected what he called an “unsustainable assumption” made by the Bareilly Family Court, which had ordered the young man to pay ₹9,000 per month in maintenance to his wife and daughter. The High Court reduced it to ₹4,500 per month; ₹2,500 for the wife and ₹2,000 for the child and made it effective only from January 1, 2021, the day the husband turned 18.
The couple married on July 10, 2016, when the husband was just 13 years old, according to his school certificate. Their daughter was born on September 21, 2018, and the wife approached the Bareilly Family Court in February 2019, seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. In November 2023, the Family Court directed the boy to pay ₹9,000 monthly from the date of filing, assuming his income was between ₹25,000–₹30,000; a figure the High Court later called “unrealistic and baseless”.
The husband argued that he was a minor at the time of marriage and when the case was filed, making him legally incapable of assuming adult financial responsibilities. He pointed out that no guardian had been appointed, which violated proper legal procedure, and emphasized that he was a student with no source of income, making the Family Court’s income assumption entirely unrealistic. He further claimed that his wife had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause, thereby disqualifying her from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) of the CrPC. In response, the wife contended that a husband cannot escape his moral duty to maintain his wife and child.
Justice Madan Pal Singh made a crucial observation: “while Section 125 CrPC doesn’t prohibit proceedings against a minor, maintenance liability requires proof of “sufficient means.”
The Court noted that since the husband was only 16 when the case was filed, he could not be presumed to have independent earning capacity.
“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”.
Rejecting the inflated income assumptions of the Family Court, the High Court assessed the husband’s earning potential at ₹18,000 per month, equivalent to that of a daily wage labourer. Applying the principles from Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) and Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari (1970) the bench fixed: ₹2,500/month for the wife and ₹2,000/month for the child payable from January 1, 2021, when he attains majority. Any excess payment already made will be adjusted in future instalments.
“A minor husband isn’t unfairly punished for obligations he can’t legally fulfil”.
Explanatory Table of All Laws and Sections in This Case
| Law / Section | Provision / Meaning | Relevance in the Case |
| Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance for wives, children, and parents | Basis of wife’s claim |
| Section 125(4) CrPC | Disqualification if wife leaves without cause | Cited by husband |
| Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 | Declares child marriages voidable and protects minors | Marriage at age 13 shielded husband from liability |
| Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) | Supreme Court’s framework for fixing maintenance | Applied to cap maintenance at 25% |
| Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari (1970) | SC precedent on maintenance calculation | Used to assess fair quantum |
| Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2024 | Appeal against Family Court order | Present case before Allahabad High Court |
Case Title: Abhishek Singh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
Counsels
- For Petitioner: Mr. S.M. Iqbal Hasan
- For Respondents: Mr. Purushottam Pandey, Government Advocate
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan Pal Singh
Details
- Court: Allahabad High Court
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2024
- Originating Case: Criminal Misc. Case No. 1546 of 2019, Family Court, Bareilly
- Date of Judgment: September 25, 2025
- Statutory References:
- Section 125 CrPC
- Section 125(4) CrPC.
- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006
- Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) – Supreme Court
- Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari (1970) – Supreme Court
- High Court Judgment:
- Minor can’t be forced to pay maintenance — no earning capacity before 18.
- Liability starts only after attaining majority (from Jan 1, 2021).
- Family Court’s ₹25–30k income estimate was baseless.
- Child marriage law protects minors, not penalizes them.
- Wife’s right to maintenance begins only when husband becomes an adult.
- Applied SC rulings (Rajnesh v. Neha, Kulbhushan Kumar) to fix ₹4,500/month fairly.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.