JUDGMENT - H.L. GOKHALE, J.:---The appellants in these two appeals are daughters of the sole respondent. As of now they are aged 22 and 20 years respectively. The respondent herein has filed a petition for divorce against the mother of the appellants i.e. one Smt. Smita Pusalkar. That proceeding is pending. During the pendency of that proceeding, both these daughters filed two separate petitions under section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, the said Act) before the Family Court at Pune bearing Nos. P.C. 24 of 2001 and P.C. 25 of 2001 respectively. Both these petitions came to be rejected by order dated 29th May 2001 passed by a learned Judge of the Family Court, Pune. The learned Judge took the view that the petitions did not disclose any cause of action. He took the view that since the daughters were no longer minors they could not claim maintenance under section 20(2) of the said Act. He, therefore, rejected their petitions under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Being aggrieved by this order, these two appeals have been filed. After the appeals were admitted, their hearing was expedited. Mr. Anturkar has appeared for the appellant in both these matters and Mr. Pradeep Patil has appeared for the respondent.

3. The questions which arise for our consideration are mainly two-fold. Firstly, as to whether such a petition by an adult unmarried daughter could be filed under section 20 of the said Act and secondly, as to whether the same could be filed in the Family Court.

4. Now, as far as the first question is concerned, it would be desirable to refer to section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which reads as follows :-

20. Maintenance of children and aged parents.---(1) Subject to the provisions of this section 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.

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

(3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property.

In this connection, it is also desirable to note the definition of "maintenance under section 3(b) of the said Act which reads as under :-

"(b) "maintenance" includes.-

(i) in all cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment;

(ii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, also the reasonable expenses of and incident to her marriage."

5. Mr. Anturkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the learned Judge had failed in noting the true import of sub-section (2) of section 20 of the said Act. He drew our attention firstly to sub-section (1) of that section and thereafter to sub-section (3) thereof. He further submitted that although section 20(1) begins by saying that what was provided was subject to the provisions of the particular section, it made very clear that a Hindu was bound during his or her life time to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children. Thereafter he submitted that while sub-section (2) conferred a right on the child to claim maintenance so long as the child was minor, sub-section (3) again extended this obligation as far as the daughter is concerned. The said sub-section provides that as far as the daughter is concerned the obligation of a person to maintain her is extended if she is unmarried so long as she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or bother property. Mr. Anturkar, therefore, submits that as a result of sub-section (2) of section 20 perhaps the son's right to claim maintenance would be restricted on attaining majority, but as far as daughter is concerned, her entitlement continues even after attaini

Click Here to Read the rest of this document