Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
Shilpa D/o K.K. Rajeevan – Petitioner
Versus
K.K. Rajeevan S/o Kunjan – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1661 of 2018
Decided On : 14-06-2024
Maintenance - Hindu Father - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 20(1)(d) of D.V. Act - Section 125 of Code - Section 20(3) of Maintenance Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an unmarried daughter, sought maintenance from her father under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act. The respondent contested, claiming exemption due to the petitioner's marriage and employment abroad.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the obligation to pay maintenance to a non-earning daughter continues until her marriage, as per Section 20(3) of the Maintenance Act, and dismissed the petition due to lack of specificity in the maintenance order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the character of the maintenance order, the petitioner's marriage and employment status, and the applicability of Section 20(3) of the Maintenance Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the obligation to pay maintenance to a non-earning daughter continues until her marriage, as per Section 20(3) of the Maintenance Act, and emphasized the need for specificity in maintenance orders under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court emphasized the need for specifying the provision under which maintenance is ordered under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act.
Key Points: - The court held that the DV Act maintenance order under Section 20(1)(d) can be under Section 125 CrPC or under Section 20(3) Maintenance Act, depending on the nature of the order; lack of specificity matters (!) (!) . - If the order is under Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act, the obligation may extend until marriage or until self-support, depending on whether it is under 125 CrPC or 20(3); the distinction affects enforceability (!) (!) . - The judgment emphasizes that the Magistrate must specify in the order under which provision maintenance is ordered to avoid ambiguity and potential dismissal on lack of specificity (!) (!) . - The petitioner’s maintenance obligation was contested after attainment of majority and upon marriage, with the Court clarifying the applicable regime and necessary proof for continuing or ending maintenance (!) (!) . - The analysis rejects assuming the DV Act order automatically falls under the Maintenance Act (20(3)) purely due to Hindu status; the order’s character dictates the regime (!) . - The decision references Vikraman Nair v. Aishwaya for the principle that 20(3) obligations continue until marriage or self-support, but here the need is to delineate the correct basis in the DV Act order (!) . - The order to pay maintenance can reside under "any other law for the time being in force" as per DV Act Section 20(1)(d) (i.e., can encompass Code or Maintenance Act) (!) . - The petition was dismissed due to lack of specificity in the original order’s basis, not because maintenance was improper in principle (!) . - The document discusses the need to distinguish between pre-existing maintenance rights under 125 CrPC and ongoing rights under 20(3) for Hindu daughters (!) (!) . - The appellate and trial courts’ reasoning focused on whether the petitioner proved insufficient income; the core issue remains the proper statutory basis for the maintenance order (!) .
ORDER :
1. An interesting question cropped up in this revision; whether an order directing a Hindu father to pay maintenance to his unmarried daughter under Section 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) has the character of an order for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) or maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Maintenance Act)?
2. The petitioner is the daughter of the respondent. The petitioner, through her mother, filed C.M.P. No. 3755 of 2009 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence) Court, Ernakulam claiming maintenance. She was aged 14 years at that time. The Magistrate in exercise of the powers under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act ordered the respondent to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/-. An appeal was filed by the respondent, but it was unsuccessful. She attained majority on 02.07.2012. However, the respondent continued to pay the amount of maintenance till April, 2015. He then filed C.M.P. No. 2415 of 2015 seeking to exempt him from making continued payment of maintenance.
3. The contentions of the respondent were two fold: the petitioner attained majority, whereby the liability of the respondent to pay maintenance ceased and that the petitioner went abroad and has been earning sufficient income from her employment. The petitioner did not dispute the date of attaining majority, but contended that as long as she remained unmarried and income-less, she was entitled to get the monthly maintenance. The learned Magistrate did not accept the contentions of the petitioner. The petition was allowed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Sessions Court. Challenging the said orders, this revision petition has been filed under Section 397 of the Code.
4. The petitioner admitted that during pendency of the appeal, she married. The marriage was in 2017. It is indisputable that even under the Maintenance Act, the petitioner is not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent after her marriage. Therefore, the liability, which is now in dispute is concerning monthly maintenance from May, 2015 till the date of marriage of the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The courts below proceeded with the matter on the premises that the petitioner was entitled to get monthly maintenance till she marries or becomes an earning member. However, holding that since she did not produce her passport and other details showing her travel abroad and claim maintenance promptly after the date of her attaining majority, it was inferred that she had sufficient income. The appellate court observed that in the circumstances of the case the onus of proving that the petitioner did not have sufficient income to maintain herself was on her, which she did not discharge. The courts below accordingly held concurrently that the obligation of the respondent to pay maintenance ceased.
7. I may say at the outset that if the order to pay maintenance was in recognition of the right of the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code, the obligation of the respondent ceased on her attaining majority; this being not an instance of the claimant suffering from physical or mental abnormality or injury. If, on the other hand, the order to pay maintenance is in recognition of the right of the petitioner under Section 20(3) of the Maintenance Act, the obligation to get maintenance continues until the marriage of the petitioner or till she could maintain herself out of her own earnings. This second question is no more res integra. This Court in Vikraman Nair vs. Aishwaya, 2019 (1) KLT 826 held that the obligation of a Hindu father to maintain an unmarried daughter who is unable to maintain herself is personal and legal in nature. As per Section 3(b)(ii) of the Act, 'maintenance' includes, in the
AI
The obligation to pay maintenance to a non-earning daughter continues until her marriage, as per Section 20(3) of the Maintenance Act, and maintenance orders under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act mu....
The DV Act provides a broad scope of monetary relief, including maintenance for aggrieved persons and their children, and establishes the independent right of unmarried daughters to obtain maintenanc....
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....
An unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married resorting to S.20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Maintenance – Unmarried daughter, whether Hindu or Muslim has right to obtain maintenance, irrespective of her age – Courts have to look for other laws applicable when question pertains to right to b....
An unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. However, an unmarried daughter, who attaine....
A daughter who has attained majority is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. unless she is unable to maintain herself due to physical or mental abnormality.
Only individuals defined as 'children' under 18 years can claim maintenance, and entitlement ceases upon reaching majority, as outlined in the PWDV Act.
The obligation to provide maintenance under the PWDV Act and related laws ceases when a child attains the age of majority, as defined in the relevant statutes.
A father has a statutory obligation under Hindu law to maintain his unmarried daughter and cover reasonable marriage expenses, enforceable even after the daughter reaches majority.
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
