Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
ABHILASHA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PARKASH & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 615 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.8260 of 2018)
Decided On : 15-09-2020
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 125 and 482 – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 20 – Grant of maintenance – Right of Hindu major unmarried daughter to claim maintenance from her father – Whereas Section 125 Cr.P.C. limits claim of maintenance of a child until he or she attains majority – By virtue of Section 125(1)(c), an unmarried daughter even though she has attained majority is entitled for maintenance, where such unmarried daughter is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury is unable to maintain itself – Scheme under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. contemplate that claim of maintenance by a daughter who has attained majority is admissible only when by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, she is unable to maintain herself – In present case, Revisional Court has returned a finding that appellant is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or injury due to which she is unable to maintain herself – There may be a case where Family Court has jurisdiction to decide a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as suit under Section 20 of Act, 1956, in such eventuality, Family Court can exercise jurisdiction under both Acts and in an appropriate case can grant maintenance to unmarried daughter even though she has become major enforcing her right under Section 20 of Act, 1956 so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – However, Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot pass such order – Magistrate while deciding proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. could not have exercised jurisdiction under Section 20(3) of Act, 1956 – No infirmity in order of Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as Additional Magistrate in not granting maintenance to appellant who had become major – Appeal dismissed by giving liberty to appellant to take recourse to Section 20(3) of Act, 1956. (Paras 12, 33, 34, )
(B) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 20 – Maintenance – Hindu Law always recognised liability of father to maintain an unmarried daughter – Muslim Law also recognises obligation of father to maintain his daughters until they are married – Section 20(3) now makes it statutory obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property – Right of unmarried daughter under Section 20 to claim maintenance from her father when she is unable to maintain herself is absolute – Right given to unmarried daughter under Section 20 is right granted under personal law which can very well be enforced by her against her father – An unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married relying on Section 20(3) of Act, 1956, provided she pleads and proves that she is unable to maintain herself, for enforcement of which right her application/suit has to be under Section 20 of Act, 1956. (Paras 25, 26, 27, 28, 31 and 38)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 20 – Maintenance – Maintenance as contemplated under Act, 1956 is a larger concept as compared to concept of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Purpose and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as is to provide immediate relief to applicant in a summary proceedings, whereas right under Section 20 read with Section 3(b) of Act, 1956 contains larger right which needs determination by a Civil Court – For larger claims as enshrined under Section 20, proceedings need to be initiated under Section 20 of Act – Legislature never contemplated to burden Magistrate while exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to determine claims contemplated by Act, 1956. (Paras 35 and 36)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been filed by the appellant, daughter of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, challenging order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16.08.2018 by which order High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant praying for setting aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewari dated 16.02.2011 as well as the order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari. The question to be answered in the present case is as to whether a Hindu unmarried daughter is entitled to claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 Cr.P.C. only till she attains majority or she can claim maintenance till she remains unmarried.
Findings of Court:
Magistrate while deciding proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. could not have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 20(3) of Act, 1956 and submission of the appellant cannot be accepted that the Court below should have allowed the application for maintenance even though she has become major. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as Additional Magistrate in not granting maintenance to appellant who had become major.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
A Magistrate deciding proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and do not involve the larger rights available under the Civil Law, which are to be determined in a civil court under Section 20 of the Act (!) (!) (!) (!) .
An unmarried Hindu daughter has a statutory right to claim maintenance from her father until she is married, relying on Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. This right is enforceable through a civil suit or application under Section 20, provided she proves her inability to maintain herself (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The concept of maintenance under the Hindu Law, as recognized prior to the enactment of the Act, includes the obligation of the father to maintain his unmarried daughters. This obligation is now codified in Section 20(3), making it a statutory duty for Hindus to maintain their unmarried daughters who are unable to support themselves (!) (!) (!) .
Maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, is a broader concept than the maintenance provided under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It encompasses expenses related to food, clothing, residence, education, medical treatment, and even expenses related to marriage for an unmarried daughter (!) (!) (!) .
Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are meant to provide immediate relief in a summary manner, whereas claims under Section 20 of the Act involve larger rights that require determination in a civil court. The legislature did not intend for Magistrates exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 to decide the claims that are properly under the civil law (!) (!) .
The orders passed by Magistrates and appellate courts limiting maintenance claims to the period until the daughter attains majority are correct when the daughter is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or injury. However, if the daughter is unable to maintain herself due to inability, she can pursue a claim under Section 20(3) of the Act, which can be enforced in a civil court (!) (!) (!) .
The right of an unmarried daughter to claim maintenance from her father continues until she is married, as recognized under Section 20(3), which is a statutory right derived from personal law. This right can be enforced through a civil suit or application (!) (!) (!) .
The jurisdiction of Family Courts and Magistrates differs; Family Courts have jurisdiction over cases involving larger claims of maintenance under the civil law, including claims by unmarried daughters beyond the period of majority, while Magistrates are limited to summary proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (!) (!) .
The law recognizes the obligation of the father to maintain his unmarried daughter who is unable to support herself, and this obligation persists until she gets married or the court finds she can maintain herself (!) (!) .
The legal framework emphasizes that the rights under Section 20 of the Act are larger and more comprehensive, and a daughter claiming maintenance under this section must prove her inability to support herself. If she does so, she can claim maintenance even after attaining majority until her marriage or until she is able to maintain herself (!) (!) .
In summary, a Hindu unmarried daughter has a statutory right to claim maintenance from her father until she is married, which can be enforced through civil proceedings under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are limited to temporary relief and do not extend to larger claims of maintenance, especially after the daughter attains majority and is not suffering from any incapacity.
JUDGMENT
ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, daughter of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, challenging the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16.08.2018 by which order the High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant praying for setting aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewari dated 16.02.2011 as well as the order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari.
3. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding this appeal are:-
3.1 The respondent No.2, mother of the appellant, on her behalf, as well as on behalf of her two sons and the appellant daughter, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband, the respondent No.1, Parkash, claiming maintenance for herself and her three children. The learned Judicial Magistrate vide its judgment dated 16.02.2011 dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of the applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and allowed the same for applicant No.4 (appellant before us) for grant of maintenance till she attains majority.
3.2 Aggrieved against the judgment dated 16.02.2011, all the four applicants filed a criminal revision before the Court of Sessions Judge, which criminal revision was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 17.02.2014 with the only modification that revisionist No.4 (appellant before us) shall be entitled to maintenance till 26.04.2005 when she attains majority. Learned Additional Sessions Judge held that as per provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C., the children, who had attained majority are entitled to maintenance, if by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, they are unable to maintain themselves. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also held that the revisionist No.4 (i.e. appellant) is not suffering from any physical, mental abnormality or injury, therefore, she is entitled to maintenance only till 26.04.2005 i.e., till she attains majority.
3.3 Challenging the order of Sessions Judge as well as the Judicial Magistrate, an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before the High court by all the applicants including the appellant. High Court by the impugned judgment dated 16.02.2018 dismissed the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by making following observations:-
“Both the Courts are consistent with regard to declining maintenance to petitioners No. 1 to 3. As regards grant of maintenance to Abhilasha by the trial Court, the order regarding it was modified by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari observing that she was entitled to get maintenance till attaining majority and not thereafter since she is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or injury, in those eventualities a child, who though has attained majority but is unable to maintain itself is entitled to get maintenance.
I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, which might have called for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.”
3.4 This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the High Court.
4. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that even though the appellant had attained majority on 26.04.2005 but since she is unmarried, she is entitled to claim maintenance from her father. Learned senior counsel contends that High Court committed error in dismissing the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the appellant on wrong premise that since appellant has attained majority and is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality, she is not entitled for any maintenance. Ms. Makhija has relied on provisions of Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1956”) and submits that as per Section 20 obligation of a person to maintain
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
