Can an Adult Son Claim Maintenance From His Father?

What Does the Law Actually Say About a Son and Maintenance?

Imagine a 22-year-old young man whose parents are separated. His mother is struggling. His father has a good income. The son is unable to find a job. He walks into a lawyer's office and asks: "Can I claim maintenance from my father?" The lawyer's answer surprises him — and it will probably surprise you too.

The short answer under Hindu law is: No, an adult son generally cannot claim maintenance from his father. Once a son crosses 18 years of age — the legal age of majority — his right to claim maintenance from his father under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) comes to an end. This is not a matter of the father's goodness or cruelty. It is a clear statutory rule.

But as with most things in law, there is more to the story than a simple yes or no. There are important nuances, exceptions related to disability, and a stark contrast with how the law treats daughters. This article walks you through all of it — based strictly on what the law and courts have said.

The Majority Rule: What Happens When a Son Turns 18?

Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is the governing provision for maintenance of children and parents. It works in two parts that must be read together carefully.

Section 20(1) imposes a broad obligation:

A Hindu is bound, during his or her lifetime, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children and his or her aged or infirm parents.

This sounds absolute. But Section 20(2) immediately qualifies it for children:

A legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his father or his mother so long as the child is a minor.

The phrase "so long as the child is a minor" is the key. Under the Indian Majority Act, 1875, a person becomes a major at 18 years of age. Once a son turns 18, he is no longer a minor in the eyes of the law, and his right to claim maintenance under Section 20(2) of HAMA ends automatically.

This rule applies regardless of whether the son is employed or unemployed, rich or poor, studying or not studying. The section draws a bright line at majority — with one significant exception that we discuss below.

The courts have consistently affirmed that the father's obligation to maintain his child is a statutory liability, and no agreement between parents can take away this right of the child during minority. In Tulsi Kumar v. Raghavan (AIR 1985), the court held that even if the mother had by agreement undertaken the responsibility to maintain the child, this did not preclude the child from claiming maintenance from the father. The mere fact that the father lacked sufficient means only went to the quantum of maintenance, not the liability itself. But this obligation — firm as it is — lasts only until the son turns 18.

Similarly, in Mohinder Singh v. Ravneet Kaur (AIR 2007), the court held that the word "or" in Section 20(2) should be read as "and" — meaning a child can claim maintenance from both father and mother where both are capable of providing it. But again, this right existed only during the child's minority.

Legitimate and Illegitimate Sons: Same Rule Applies

One might wonder — does the law treat illegitimate sons differently? The answer is no. Section 20 explicitly covers both legitimate and illegitimate children. The obligation of the father arises by reason of the status of the person — whether the child is legitimate or illegitimate — and not because of whether the parent is a Hindu. This was confirmed in the Madras High Court's ruling in KA. Adam v. Gopalakrishna, where it was held that if a child is a Hindu, that child is entitled to claim maintenance against the parent.

Under Section 20(2), an illegitimate son has the same right as a legitimate son — maintenance during minority. And the same cut-off applies. Once he turns 18, the right to claim maintenance from his father under HAMA ends.

The position was confirmed in Subhan Rao v. Parvathi Bai (AIR 2002): the liability is dealt from the viewpoint of the child, and if the child is a Hindu, he is entitled to claim maintenance against the parent — but within the framework of Section 20(2), which limits this to minority for sons.

Similarly, an adopted son has no higher claim than a natural-born son, as established in Nanda Krishna v. Bhupendra (AIR 1966). The same majority rule applies to him too.

Why Is an Adult Daughter Treated Differently? The Unmarried Daughter Rule

This is where the law draws a sharp and deliberate distinction between sons and daughters — and it is worth understanding precisely, because many people confuse the two.

Section 20(3) of HAMA creates a special right for daughters that has no equivalent for sons:

The obligation of a person to maintain his or her unmarried daughter does not cease on her attaining the age of majority. It extends till the time she is married.

This means an unmarried daughter — whether she is 19, 25, or 35 — retains the right to claim maintenance from her father as long as she is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or property. The obligation extends until her marriage.

In Viswambharan v. Dhanga (AIR 2005), the court confirmed that the liability of the daughter's maintenance does not cease on her attaining the age of majority. And in Kartar Chand v. Taravati (AIR 1982), it was explicitly held that it is only under HAMA (not under Section 125 CrPC or under the Hindu Marriage Act) that maintenance of an unmarried major daughter can be awarded.

The burden, in such cases, is on the father to prove that the daughter can maintain herself. In Wali Ram v. Mukhtiar Kaur (AIR 1969), the court made clear that a presumption of ability to earn should not be raised from bodily health or age alone in the case of a Hindu girl. The father must establish that his daughter has actual means to support herself.

For sons, there is no equivalent provision. Section 20(3) is explicitly about daughters. A son who turns 18 does not get the benefit of an extended maintenance obligation from his father under HAMA, regardless of whether he is unmarried.

If you or someone you know is dealing with questions about maintenance and related domestic disputes, understanding which law applies is the essential first step.

Can a Disabled or Infirm Son Claim Maintenance From His Father?

This is the most nuanced part of the discussion, and the one where the law's silence has led to genuine difficulty in practice.

Section 20 of HAMA does not contain an explicit exception for a disabled adult son the way that Section 20(3) contains an exception for unmarried daughters. The provision for "aged or infirm" persons in Section 20(1) applies to parents, not to children.

However, courts and legal scholars have noted that an adult son suffering from a serious physical or mental disability — who is genuinely unable to maintain himself — may have recourse under other legal frameworks. These include:

• Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) / BNSS: This provision allows a magistrate to order a person to pay maintenance to his children, including a son or daughter, if they are unable to maintain themselves. Importantly, Section 125 does not restrict maintenance to minors when the child suffers from physical or mental abnormality or injury. An adult son who is unable to maintain himself due to physical or mental disability can claim maintenance from his father under Section 125 CrPC.
• The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: This Act casts obligations on family members regarding care of persons with disabilities.
• The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: This Act imposes an obligation on children who are not minors to maintain their parents — it does not create a right for adult children against parents, but it shows the legislative intent of maintenance laws.

Under HAMA alone, the position is that an adult son — even one who is ill or disabled — cannot directly claim maintenance from his father. The source material does not record a case under HAMA specifically granting maintenance to a disabled adult son beyond majority. However, Section 125 CrPC fills this gap and is the practical remedy for such situations.

If you are an adult son with a disability or serious illness and your father has refused to support you, you should consult a lawyer about filing under Section 125 CrPC rather than under HAMA.

Education Expenses: Does the Father Have to Pay After 18?

Many parents support their children's higher education well beyond age 18. But is this legally required? The answer is nuanced.

Section 3(b) of HAMA defines "maintenance" broadly:

Maintenance includes provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment.

Education is explicitly part of maintenance. And in Lt. Col. Ravee v. Ujjwal (AIR 2002 P&H 288), the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the definition of maintenance includes educational expenses of an adult child as well.

However, this ruling must be read together with Section 20(2). Education expenses are part of "maintenance," but a son's right to maintenance under Section 20(2) lasts only during minority. So while the definition of maintenance includes education, once the son is a major, his right to claim maintenance (including education expenses) under HAMA from his father ends.

In practice, a father who wants to support his adult son's education does so voluntarily — and many do. But an adult son cannot go to a civil court under HAMA and demand that his father pay for his college education. He may, however, pursue Section 125 CrPC if he is genuinely unable to maintain himself during the period of study due to physical or mental abnormality.

What If the Father Refuses to Pay Even During Minority?

Before addressing what an adult son can do, it is worth being very clear about the rights of a minor son, because these are absolutely protected by law.

A minor son's right to maintenance from his father is a statutory right that no agreement between parents can take away. In Tulsi Kumar v. Raghavan (AIR 1985), the Supreme Court confirmed that even where the mother had agreed to take responsibility for the child, the child could still claim maintenance from the father. The father's lack of means goes only to the quantum, not the principle.

In D. Krishna Prasada Rao v. K Jayassi (AIR 1986), the court held that a Hindu parent is under an absolute obligation to maintain his legitimate and adopted children. Even if a child is disobedient or stubborn, the parent cannot use that as a reason to deny maintenance. The burden is on the father to show that there is no default on his part.

The remedy for a minor son whose father refuses to pay maintenance is to file a civil suit under HAMA in the appropriate civil court, or to file an application under Section 125 CrPC before a Magistrate. Under Section 125 CrPC, the remedy is faster and less expensive. A mother may file on behalf of a minor son.

Questions about how maintenance interacts with divorce proceedings often come together. If there is also a pending divorce between the parents, understanding how divorce proceedings affect maintenance rights is equally important.

What Should I Actually Do Now?

1. Check your son's age first. If the son is under 18, the right to maintenance under HAMA is absolute and the father cannot escape it by agreement or by claiming lack of means. File in civil court or under Section 125 CrPC immediately.
2. If the son is over 18 and has a disability, file an application under Section 125 CrPC (now BNSS) before the Judicial Magistrate in your area. This provision covers adults who cannot maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormality or injury.
3. If the son is an unmarried daughter instead, the position is much stronger — file under Section 20(3) of HAMA before a civil court. The obligation continues until marriage, regardless of the daughter's age.
4. Gather income documents of the father. Even if the father claims he has no means, courts have held that the father's means go only to the quantum, not the liability. Bank statements, salary slips, or property records of the father are relevant.
5. Do not rely on a verbal agreement. If a parent has agreed to pay maintenance privately and has stopped, that agreement alone is not enforceable without a court order. File a proper application.
6. Consult a lawyer before filing. The choice of remedy — HAMA suit in civil court versus Section 125 CrPC application before a Magistrate — affects speed, cost, and outcome. A lawyer can advise on the best route for your specific facts.
7. File in the correct court. HAMA suits go to civil courts of competent jurisdiction. Section 125 CrPC applications go before a Judicial Magistrate. The Family Court has jurisdiction over both in many cities.
8. Track the date of filing. Maintenance under a court order is typically granted from the date of the suit, not earlier. Do not delay if you are entitled to maintenance.

You Have Options — Know Them

The law under HAMA draws a firm line: a son's right to maintenance from his father ends at 18. That is the statute's choice, and courts follow it. But this does not mean an adult son in genuine distress is left without any legal options. Section 125 CrPC remains available for those who are disabled or cannot maintain themselves due to injury or abnormality. And for daughters, the law is far more protective — an unmarried daughter retains her right until marriage.

Understanding which law applies, and under which provision to file, is the most important first step. Getting this wrong can mean your application is dismissed on a technical ground even when the underlying need is real.

The laws of inheritance and succession can also interact with maintenance claims — particularly after a parent's death — and are worth understanding if family property is involved.

Written by the Pinaka Legal Editorial Team. For queries, call +91 8595704798 or email info@pinakalegal.com.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an adult son claim maintenance from his father under Hindu law?

No, generally not under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA). Section 20(2) of HAMA limits a son's right to maintenance to his minority — that is, until age 18. Once a son turns 18, his right to maintenance from his father under HAMA ends. However, an adult son who is unable to maintain himself due to physical or mental disability or injury may file an application under Section 125 CrPC before a Magistrate.

What does Section 20 of HAMA say about children's maintenance?

Section 20(1) of HAMA casts a general obligation on a Hindu to maintain legitimate or illegitimate children and aged or infirm parents during their lifetime. Section 20(2) limits the child's right to claim maintenance to the period of minority. Section 20(3) creates a special right for unmarried daughters, extending the father's obligation until the daughter is married — with no age limit.

Can an adult son claim maintenance from his father under Section 125 CrPC?

Yes, in specific circumstances. Section 125 CrPC allows a Magistrate to order a person to maintain his children. Unlike HAMA, Section 125 CrPC does not restrict maintenance to minors when the child suffers from any physical or mental abnormality or injury and is thereby unable to maintain himself. An adult son with a disability can file under Section 125 CrPC.

Is an adult unmarried daughter's maintenance right different from a son's?

Yes, significantly so. Under Section 20(3) of HAMA, the father's obligation to maintain an unmarried daughter does not cease when she turns 18. The obligation continues until she is married. This right has no equivalent for sons — a son's right ends at majority under Section 20(2). Courts have confirmed this distinction in cases like Viswambharan v. Dhanga (AIR 2005) and Kartar Chand v. Taravati (AIR 1982).

Can an adult son claim maintenance if he is unemployed or studying?

Not under HAMA. Unemployment or being a student does not, by itself, extend a son's right to maintenance beyond age 18 under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The majority rule at 18 applies regardless of employment status. However, if the son is unable to maintain himself due to physical or mental disability, Section 125 CrPC provides a separate remedy.

Can an adult son claim maintenance from his father for education expenses?

Not directly under HAMA. While Section 3(b) of HAMA includes education in the definition of maintenance, and in Lt. Col. Ravee v. Ujjwal (AIR 2002 P&H 288) education expenses of adult children were noted as part of maintenance, the right to claim maintenance under Section 20(2) ends at 18. An adult son cannot go to court under HAMA to demand education expenses from his father.

Does the rule apply to illegitimate sons too?

Yes. Section 20 of HAMA covers both legitimate and illegitimate children. The Madras High Court confirmed in KA. Adam v. Gopalakrishna that the obligation arises from the status of the child, not from whether the parent is a Hindu. An illegitimate son has the same right to maintenance during minority — and the same cut-off at age 18 — as a legitimate son.

Can an adult son claim maintenance from his father for a serious illness?

Not under HAMA directly, since the Section 20(2) right ends at 18. However, if the illness amounts to a physical abnormality or injury that makes the son unable to maintain himself, Section 125 CrPC offers a remedy. A Magistrate can order the father to pay maintenance to an adult child who is so afflicted. It is advisable to consult a lawyer to assess which provision best fits the facts.

What if the father has no income — does the son still have a right to maintenance during minority?

Yes. During minority, the son's right to maintenance is an absolute statutory right under Section 20(2) of HAMA. The father's lack of income goes only to the quantum of maintenance — how much is ordered — not to whether he is liable. In Tulsi Kumar v. Raghavan (AIR 1985), the court confirmed that the father's limited means cannot obliterate his liability under Section 20.

Where should I file a case for a minor son's maintenance?

A minor son's maintenance claim can be filed in a civil court of competent jurisdiction under HAMA, or before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 125 CrPC. In cities with Family Courts, these matters are heard there. Section 125 CrPC is generally faster and less expensive. A mother or next friend may file the application on behalf of a minor child.

Can an adult son claim maintenance from his father as a "dependent" under HAMA?

No. Section 21 of HAMA defines "dependants" who can claim maintenance from the estate of a deceased person. A minor son is listed as a dependant. An adult son who has crossed the age of majority is not listed in Section 21 as a dependant, and cannot claim maintenance from his father's estate in that capacity. An adult son's maintenance rights under HAMA effectively cease at majority.

Can an adult son claim maintenance from his father if both parents are divorced?

It depends on the son's age. If the son is a minor at the time of the divorce, both parents may be ordered to contribute to his maintenance in proportion to their means, as held in Mohinder Singh v. Ravneet Kaur (AIR 2007). Once the son turns 18, the claim under HAMA ends. Any maintenance order that was running during minority ceases to operate after he attains majority, unless he has a disability and files separately under Section 125 CrPC.

For more articles on Indian law, visit the Pinaka Legal Blog.