Child Pursuing Education Can Seek Maintenance U/S. 26 HMA Even After Attaining Majority: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has affirmed that children pursuing education are entitled to maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) until they achieve financial independence, regardless of reaching the age of majority.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal delivered the ruling, emphasizing that the intent of Section 26 of the HMA is to ensure support for children's education, which does not cease upon turning 18.

"In our considered view, 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," the Bench said. 

The Bench further stated, "The intent of Section 26 of the HMA is to provide for maintenance, inter alia, for the education of the children. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the normal course, the education of the child does not get over upon the child attaining the age of 18 years. 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." Furthermore, the Bench said that it is only after completion of a college/ university degree and in some cases, completing a post-graduation/ professional degree, would the child be able to secure employment. 

The Bench highlighted the necessity of extending maintenance beyond the age of majority, stating, "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. It is in this context that Section 26 of the HMA provides that the Court may pass orders with respect to ‘education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible’. 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 noted that in the present case, the Family Court had noted that the son was 17 years and 3 months old at the time when the impugned judgment was passed and was studying in Class 11. It further noted that the Family Court noted that the son had a good academic record,, is desirous of pursuing higher studies, and wants to become a software engineer and he is currently pursuing engineering from IP University in Delhi. "Therefore, the Family Court, taking into account the education and other related expenses likely to be incurred by the Son, awarded him an amount of Rs. 35,000/- per month till the time he is 26 years of age or becomes financially independent, whichever is earlier," it noted. 

The Court was hearing cross-appeals filed by a husband and wife challenging a Family Court order that had granted maintenance of Rs. 1.15 lakh per month to the wife and Rs. 35,000 per month to their son until he turns 26 or becomes financially independent, whichever comes first. The Family Court had also stipulated that the son’s maintenance amount would increase by 10% every two years.

The Division Bench dispose of the two appeals on the following terms:

1. The wife’s interim maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA was increased from ₹1.15 lakh to ₹1.45 lakh per month, effective from February 28, 2009, until the husband withdrew the divorce petition on July 14, 2016.

2. The husband is liable to pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum on the shortfall in maintenance for the relevant period, calculated from the due date until payment is made.

3. All arrears of maintenance to both the wife and son, along with applicable interest, must be settled within eight weeks.

"We make it clear that the observations made herein above would not have any bearing on the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. initiated by the Wife and Son and which are pending before the Family Court, Rohini. We make it clear that the Family Court will adjudicate the said proceedings without being burdened with any of the findings made herein," the Bench clarified. 

Cause Title: X v. Y [Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC: 5636-DB]

Appearance:-

Appellant: Senior Advocate Y.P. Narula, Advocate Ujas Kumar

Respondent: Advocate Anu Narula

Click here to read/download the Judgment