6. Maintenance of Children and Aged Parents under Hindu Law

This is the sixth post in Family Law-I (Hindu Law), Unit IV — having covered the wife's right to maintenance, this post covers the other two claimants under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: children, and aged or infirm parents.

The Problem This Topic Solves

A child cannot support itself, and an aged or infirm parent may no longer be able to. Section 20 places a direct legal obligation on a Hindu to maintain both — but the two obligations are not identical. A child's claim is essentially automatic during minority; a parent's claim depends on actual need. Confusing the two tests is a common mistake this post is designed to prevent.

The General Obligation — Section 20(1)

Section 20(1) states that a Hindu is bound, during his or her own lifetime, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children, and his or her aged or infirm parents. Two things stand out immediately: the obligation covers illegitimate children as much as legitimate ones, and it runs both ways across generations — a person owes maintenance to their children and to their own parents at the same time.

Children's Right to Maintenance — Section 20(2)

Section 20(2) gives a legitimate or illegitimate child the right to claim maintenance from his or her father or mother for as long as the child is a minor. The test here is simple and largely automatic: minority itself is enough to found the claim, without the child having to separately prove inability to support themselves.

Parents' and Unmarried Daughter's Right to Maintenance — Section 20(3)

Section 20(3) sets a different, need-based test for two categories of claimants: an aged or infirm parent, and an unmarried daughter. Here, the obligation to maintain extends only so far as the parent or the unmarried daughter is unable to maintain himself or herself out of their own earnings or other property. Unlike a minor child's claim, this is not automatic — it depends on the claimant genuinely lacking the means to support themselves.

The Explanation to Section 20 extends "parent" to include a childless stepmother — she can claim maintenance under this section even though the child maintaining her is not her own biological child.

Section 20 — Two Different Tests, At a Glance

• Section 20(1) — the obligation to maintain covers both legitimate and illegitimate children, and both aged/infirm parents, during the maintaining person's own lifetime.
• Section 20(2) — a minor child's claim is essentially automatic; no separate proof of need is required.
• Section 20(3) — an aged/infirm parent's or unmarried daughter's claim is need-based — it applies only to the extent they cannot maintain themselves from their own resources.

• The Explanation's inclusion of a childless stepmother within "parent" is a deliberate extension — without it, a stepmother with no biological children of her own could be left with no one legally bound to maintain her in old age.
• Because Section 20(2)'s test is minority alone, the claim ends once the child turns 18 (or 21 if a court has extended guardianship) — an adult, self-supporting child generally has no further claim under this section.

After Death — Dependants Under Sections 21 and 22

Section 20 deals with maintenance owed by a living Hindu. The Act separately recognises a related but distinct situation: what happens to maintenance obligations after a Hindu dies. Section 21 defines a list of "dependants" — relatives such as parents, a widow who has not remarried, minor sons and unmarried daughters (including those of a predeceased son), and certain widowed daughters and daughters-in-law — who may be entitled to support from the deceased's estate. Section 22 then makes the heirs who actually inherit that estate liable to maintain those dependants out of it, in proportion to the share each heir has taken, subject to the deceased's own debts being settled first. This is a wider, separate topic in its own right and worth knowing exists, even though the detailed list of nine dependant categories is beyond the scope of this post.

A Practical Example

Suppose a 16-year-old boy's parents are financially comfortable, and he wants maintenance from his father. Under Section 20(2), he does not need to show that he is actually in need — his minority alone entitles him to claim. Now suppose the boy's grandmother, aged 70, has no income and no property of her own, and asks her son (the boy's father) for maintenance. Under Section 20(3), her claim depends entirely on her actual inability to support herself — if it turned out she in fact owned property capable of supporting her, her claim under this section would fail even though she is undeniably aged.

Quick Revision Points

• Section 20(1) — a Hindu is bound, during their lifetime, to maintain their legitimate/illegitimate children and their aged/infirm parents.
• Section 20(2) — a minor child's maintenance claim is automatic, based on minority alone.
• Section 20(3) — an aged/infirm parent's or unmarried daughter's claim is need-based, limited to what they cannot provide for themselves.
• Explanation to Section 20 — "parent" includes a childless stepmother.
• Sections 21–22 — separately deal with "dependants" of a deceased Hindu, whom the heirs must maintain out of the inherited estate, in proportion to their shares.