Father Cannot Seek Refund Of Excess Maintenance Paid To Children After They Attain Majority: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a father cannot seek a refund of maintenance paid to his children after they attain majority, as he has a moral duty to support them for their education.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “...being a father, even if, he has no legal duty, but has a moral obligation and duty as a father to ensure maintenance to his children, particularly, when they are at the verge of completing their education as any order to refund the amount paid in excess to the children would hamper the future prospects of the petitioners.”

The petitioners are children of the respondents; they attained majority in 2016 and 2020, respectively. They claimed that financial constraints could disrupt their studies.

In 2012, the Judicial Magistrate awarded ₹2,000/month maintenance to each. In 2015, the Sessions Court increased it to ₹3,000. In 2017, Lok Adalat further enhanced it to ₹4,000.

In 2018, they sought further enhancement. The Family Court allowed the wife's maintenance to ₹8,000 but rejected the children's claim as they had attained majority.

The Family Court remarked that Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 BNSS) allows maintenance to a wife, minor child, or major child unable to support themselves due to disability.

Thus, the Court held that the petitioners were not disabled. Hence, they were entitled to maintenance only until they attained majority.

The High Court clarified that “a child (legitimate or illegitimate) is entitled to maintenance from their father before attaining the age of majority and after attaining such majority, only that child (legitimate or illegitimate) shall be entitled to maintenance, who, because of physical or mental abnormality or injury, is unable to maintain itself.”

Further, it was observed that the daughter turned major in 2016 and thus was not entitled to maintenance at the time of seeking enhancement; however, the son was still a minor in 2018 and hence he was entitled to the enhanced maintenance of ₹8,000 per month till he attained majority in 2020.

The Court reiterated that while the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act allows an unmarried daughter to claim support, Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not cover unmarried major daughters.

Also, the Court held that the father cannot ask for the maintenance already paid to his children, since he has a moral obligation.

Thus, the court upheld the Family Court's rejection of Rishita's claim but allowed Suchet's entitlement to enhanced maintenance till he became a major.

Case Name: Rishita Kapur and another V/s Vijay Kapur and another

Case No.: Cr. Revision (FC) No. 49 of 2024

Date of Decision: 12.09.2025

For the petitioner: Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Mr.Parav Sharma, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dev Raj, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Click Here To Read/Download Order