The main legal point established is that the right of an unmarried daughter for maintenance from her father, even after attaining majority, is recognized under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and can be enforced by her against her father.

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. Heard Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Assam/respondent No. 1.

2. The petitioner has preferred an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing of the order dated 28.10.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, in Criminal Revision Case No. 04/2019, directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance @ Rs. 3,200/- (Rupees Three Thousand Two Hundred Only) to the wife of the petitioner as per order of this Court as well as to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only as per order of the learned JMFC, in favour of the respondent, for maintenance of his daughter/respondent No. 2.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is an employee of Katolgoorie Tea Estate under Assam Company India Limited in the district of Jorhat and as such, the petitioner is residing at Staff Line Quarter No. 029, allotted by the Company. The petitioner is the father of the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner had initiated a divorce suit against his wife being Title Suit (M) No. 59/2009. The petitioner and his wife finally in Case No. CRP 310/2011, came to a settlement and on the basis of the terms and conditions of settlement dated 10.04.2012, this Court passed an order dated 25.04.2012, whereby the marriage between the petitioner and his wife was dissolved and the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 3,200/- to his wife, i.e., mother of the respondent No. 2. The petitioner, abiding by the terms and conditions of the settlement dated 10.04.2012, before the Mediation Centre of Gauhati High Court, has been paying Rs. 3,200/- to the mother of the respondent No. 2.

4. It is further stated by the petitioner that the respondent No. 2, subsequently filed the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being Misc. Case No. 10/2018, before the Court of JMFC, Jorhat, with a prayer to pay maintenance allowance from the petitioner. The Court of JMFC, Jorhat passed the order dated 15.11.2018, with a direction to the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent No. 2 to maintain herself.

5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment dated 15.11.2018 passed by the JMFC, Jorhat, the petitioner had preferred a revision petition vide Criminal Revision Case No. 04/2019, before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jorhat. The learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, after hearing both sides, passed the order dated 28.10.2019, directing the petitioner to abide by the order dated 25.04.2012, passed by this Court in CRP No. 310 of 2011 as well as the order passed in Misc. Case No. 10 /2018, passed by the learned JMFC, Jorhat. Hence, this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal, perverse and contrary to law, as learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat has failed to consider the fact that the respondent No. 2 has attained the majority and she is fit in mental condition and from the date of majority she is not entitled to get any maintenance.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent No. 2 is not at all eligible to seek maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. since already she attained majority and as such, she is not entitled to any maintenance, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Though the respondent No. 2 is entitled to maintenance under Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the maintenance petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not at all maintainable. The Court below failed to give any opportunity to the petitioner, while passing the order by invoking the provision under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following case-law:

Abhilasha vs. Prakash and Others in Crl. Appeal No. 615 of 2020 and SLP (Crl.) No. 8260/20