Manmohan, J.— (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. challenging the order dated 17th March, 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 147 of 2011 wherein it was held that the petition filed by a major unmarried daughter for maintenance was not maintainable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The ASJ in the impugned order dated 17th March, 2012 has held as under:-

“8. I have bestowed my careful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned counsel for respondent in the light of the relevant provisions of law as well as the cases relied upon in support of their respective submissions and I have come to the conclusion that u/s 125 Cr.P.C. a major unmarried daughter cannot claim maintenance from her father unless her case is covered u/s 125(1)(c) Cr.P.C. Admittedly, Mansi Vohra is major daughter of the revisionist Ramesh Vohra and she is not physically or mentally abnormal and as such her petition u/s 125 Cr. P.C. for claiming maintenance is not legally maintainable. I also agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for revisionist that a major daughter unable to maintain herself can claim maintenance from her father only u/s 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Keeping in view this well settled legal proposition of law, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by learned MM is not in accordance with law and accordingly it is set aside by holding that the maintenance petition filed by Mansi Vohra, the present respondent, for claiming maintenance from her father Ramesh Vohra, the present revisionist u/s 125 Cr. P.C. is not legally maintainable. With these observations, this revision petition stands disposed of.”

(emphasis supplied)

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable, the petitioner still had a statutory right to get maintenance from the respondent under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. In this connection, he relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata, (2002) 5 SCC 422 wherein it has been held as under:-

“4. Applying the principle to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is manifest that the right of a minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized in Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the judgment/order passed by the learned Single Judge for maintaining the order passed by the Family Court which is based on a combined reading of Section 125 CrPC and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. For the reasons aforestated we are of the view that on facts and in the circumstances of the case no interference with the impugned judgment/order of the High Court is called for.”

(emphasis supplied)

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the petitioner is an unmarried major daughter, she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as she does not fall in the exceptions of sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1).

4. Since the issue pertains to interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, this Court is of the view that it is essential to reproduce the relevant portion of the said Sections. The relevant portion of the aforesaid Sections are reproduced hereinbelow:-

A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

“125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

(1) If any person leaving sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental

Click Here to Read the rest of this document