A recurring question in family law is whether a father can seek a refund of maintenance paid to his children after they have attained majority. The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in Rishita Kapur and Another v. Vijay Kapur and Another (Cr. Revision (FC) No. 49 of 2024), examined this nuanced issue. The Court categorically held that a father is not entitled to recover maintenance paid to his children even after they become majors, as such payments stem from moral responsibility in addition to legal duty.
This ruling brings moral clarity to a legally grey area where parental obligations extend beyond statutory compulsion. The Court’s reasoning not only reconciles the provisions under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), but also draws from the underlying philosophy of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Rishita Kapur and Suchet Kapur, are the children of respondent Vijay Kapur and proforma respondent Neelam Kumari. Their birth dates—1 August 1998 and 17 March 2002 respectively—showed that they attained majority in 2016 and 2020. Both children were pursuing higher education when they approached the Court—Rishita as a PhD scholar at Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Palampur, and Suchet as a B.Tech student at Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar.
Originally, the Judicial Magistrate at Sarkaghat had, in 2012, granted each child ₹2,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. This was subsequently enhanced to ₹3,000 in 2015 by the Sessions Judge and further increased to ₹4,000 in 2017 through a Lok Adalat settlement.
In 2018, the mother and both children sought another enhancement under Section 127 CrPC, citing rising expenses and educational needs. While the Family Court increased the mother’s maintenance from ₹4,000 to ₹8,000, it rejected the children’s plea, holding that they had attained majority and were therefore no longer entitled to maintenance.
Feeling aggrieved, the children approached the High Court seeking relief.
Issues Before the Court
The principal questions before the Himachal Pradesh High Court were:
- Whether children who have attained majority are entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC or its equivalent Section 144 BNSS?
- If maintenance was paid beyond the children’s majority, can the father demand a refund or adjustment of the overpaid amount?
Statutory Framework and Legal Analysis
1. Section 125 CrPC and Section 144 BNSS
Section 125 CrPC, now replaced by Section 144 BNSS (2023), is a welfare provision ensuring that dependents such as wives, minor children, and certain parents are not left destitute. The provision allows maintenance only for:
- A wife unable to maintain herself;
- A legitimate or illegitimate minor child (whether married or not), unable to maintain itself, and
- A legitimate or illegitimate major child only if, due to physical or mental abnormality or injury, such child is unable to maintain itself.
2. Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
Under Section 20(2) of HAMA, a legitimate or illegitimate child can claim maintenance only during minority. However, Section 20(3) carves out an exception for unmarried daughters, stating that a father must maintain an unmarried daughter unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or property, regardless of her age.
Thus, while HAMA creates a continuing duty for unmarried daughters, Section 125 CrPC (or Section 144 BNSS) does not extend this benefit.
3. Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 26 empowers courts to pass interim or permanent orders for the custody, maintenance, and education of minor children during matrimonial proceedings. However, even here, the benefit is confined to minor children.
Court’s Observations
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, delivering the judgment (concurred by Justice Sushil Kukreja), carefully differentiated between legal and moral obligations of a parent.
1. Period of Legal Entitlement
- Rishita (daughter) attained majority on 1 August 2016 and thus could legally claim maintenance only till that date.
- Suchet (son) became a major on 17 March 2020, meaning he was legally entitled to maintenance up to that day.
High Court noted that the Family Court erred in rejecting Suchet’s entire claim for enhancement since he was still a minor at the time of the 2018 application. The Court corrected this, holding that he was entitled to ₹8,000 per month from 2 July 2018 to 17 March 2020.
2. No Right to Refund or Adjustment
The most significant pronouncement came when the Court addressed the father’s implicit right to recover maintenance paid beyond majority. The Court ruled emphatically:
“Even if the father has paid maintenance to his children after they attained majority, he shall not be entitled to recover or adjust the same… being a father, he has a moral obligation to ensure maintenance to his children, particularly when they are at the verge of completing their education.”
This reasoning highlights the human and equitable dimensions of maintenance law—recognising that parental duty is not extinguished by a child’s birthday.
3. Educational Context Matters
The Court observed that the children were still pursuing higher education. Ordering a refund would, therefore, “hamper the future prospects of the petitioners”, which the judiciary was unwilling to do. The judgment, thus, promotes the welfare and educational continuity of children transitioning to adulthood.
Moral v. Legal Duty: The Court’s Ethical Approach
While the legal duty of maintenance ends with the majority, the Court recognised a continuing moral duty of parents, especially fathers, to support their children in completing education and becoming self-reliant. This view aligns with earlier Supreme Court dicta emphasising that maintenance laws are social justice measures, not mere contracts of liability.
The High Court’s refusal to allow recovery of “overpaid” maintenance rests on this moral foundation. It signals that equitable considerations—not just strict legal entitlement—must guide decisions in family matters.
Interplay with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
The Court noted that Section 144 BNSS, which replaced Section 125 CrPC, retains the same wording and intent. Therefore, even under the new criminal procedural framework, major children (without disability) are not legally entitled to maintenance.
However, by explicitly referring to the BNSS, the Court ensured continuity in interpretation and made it clear that the reform of criminal procedure did not alter substantive entitlements.
Implications of the Judgment
1. Clarification on Refund Claims
The judgment conclusively settles that fathers cannot reclaim maintenance paid beyond a child’s majority, even if such payment was made by mistake or under a court order later found unsustainable. The rationale lies in the moral dimension of parental support.
2. Protection of Educational Continuity
By prioritising the children’s education and future, the Court ensured that legal technicalities do not jeopardise academic pursuits. This interpretation protects young adults who are financially dependent during higher studies.
3. Harmony Between Statutes
The judgment achieves harmony among:
- CrPC/BNSS (statutory maintenance);
- HAMA (civil law maintenance obligations); and
- Hindu Marriage Act (maintenance in matrimonial proceedings).
This integrative reading avoids overlaps and confusion regarding post-majority maintenance claims.
4. Guidance for Family Courts
Family Courts often face ambiguous claims for maintenance beyond the majority. This ruling provides clear guidance:
- Maintenance can continue only until the majority, unless physical/mental incapacity is proven.
- Courts must consider the educational status of dependents before rejecting enhancement applications.
- Refunds of maintenance already paid cannot be ordered in equity.
Conclusion
Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision in Rishita Kapur & Anr. v. Vijay Kapur & Anr. (2025:HHC:31444) underscores that a father cannot demand a refund of maintenance paid to children after they attain majority, as such payments fulfill his moral obligation rather than create recoverable debt.
By distinguishing between legal entitlement and moral responsibility, the Court reaffirmed that maintenance laws serve not only to enforce duty but also to preserve dignity, education, and welfare. The ruling aligns with India’s broader jurisprudential vision—where justice is not mechanical but compassionate, and where parental care transcends statutory deadlines.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams