Fit & Major Unmarried Daughter Can't Claim Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC; If Plea Filed As Major, It Can Be Converted To Suit U/S 20(3) HAMA: Allahabad HC

The Court, however, clarified that if a daughter becomes major during the pendency of the application under S. 125 CrPC, maintenance can be allowed to her in the same proceedings by the family court by invoking the provisions of Section 20(3) of the 1956 Act.

It further clarified that if such an application is filed by a daughter who is already a major, then maintenance can't be awarded in the same proceedings and that she must get the proceedings converted to a civil suit under Section 20 HAMA.

The Court added that after this conversion, maintenance can be awarded by the family court after adopting the procedure as prescribed and upon consideration of pleadings and evidence on record.

A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar held thus while allowing a criminal revision filed by Anurag Pandey against the Family Court's judgment directing him to pay maintenance of ₹10,000 per month to his major daughter in Section 125 CrPC proceedings.

Case in brief

The major unmarried daughter filed an application under Section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance from her father. The Family Court, while noting that she was a major at the time of filing, nonetheless directed maintenance relying on Section 20(3) of the 1956 Act.

Challenging the order, the revisionist argued that the trial court had misinterpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Abhilasha v. Parkash 2020. He submitted that a major daughter is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and that such a relief can only be obtained by filing a civil suit under Section 20(3) of the 1956 Act.

On the other hand, the counsel for the daughter fairly conceded that the legal position as argued was correct and suggested that the matter be remitted to the Family Court for conversion into proceedings under Section 20(3) to avoid multiplicity of cases.

High Court's observations

Taking into account the statutory scheme of Section 125 CrPC as well as Section 20(3) HAMA, the single judge noted that Section 125 CrPC permits maintenance only to minor children, or to a major child if suffering from a physical or mental abnormality.

It stressed that a major unmarried daughter who is not suffering from such incapacity cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The bench further noted that a major unmarried daughter can seek maintenance only under Section 20(3) of the 1956 Act, which obligates parents to support an unmarried daughter who is unable to support herself.

Justice Rajnish Kumar emphasized that the Family Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 CrPC, could not have awarded maintenance in the same proceeding, that too without considering the factors for determination of maintenance under Section 20(3) read with Sections 23 and 24 of Act of 1956.

Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Abhilasha v. Parkash (supra), the Court reiterated that Section 125 CrPC provides immediate relief in summary proceedings, while Section 20 of the 1956 Act recognises a larger right to be determined by a civil court.

The High Court clarified that while the Family Court does have jurisdiction under both CrPC and the 1956 Act, conversion of proceedings is permissible only in appropriate cases.

It said that if a minor daughter becomes major during the pendency of proceedings under Section 125, the court may invoke Section 20. But if the application is filed after attaining majority, as in the present case, the claim cannot be decided in a summary proceeding, and the application has to be converted into a suit.

Thus, finding an error in the Family Courts' order, the bench remitted the case back to it, allowing the daughter to move an application for conversion of her petition into a suit under Section 20(3) of the 1956 Act.

The Court directed that such an application be considered and decided on the same day or within two weeks of filing.

Advocate Amit Kumar Singh appeared for the revisionist father. Advocate Rohit Singh Parmar appeared for the respondent no. 2/Daughter.