Maintenance claims under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. allow unmarried daughters with disabilities to seek support, whereas wives must demonstrate valid reasons for separation to claim maintenance.

ORDER :

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam, in M.C.No. 306 of 2017.

2. The parties are Christians. The petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2. The respondents filed a maintenance case against the petitioner before the Family Court, Ernakulam, claiming monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-, respectively. The Family Court, after trial, granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs 20,000/- to the respondent No.1 and Rs 10,000/- to the respondent No.2. The Family Court further granted Rs 30,000/- to the respondent No.1 towards the educational expenditure of the respondent No.2 incurred by her from January 2017 to April 2017.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order mainly on three grounds: (i) since the respondent No.2 was a major on the date of the petition, she is not entitled to claim maintenance, (ii) the respondent No.1 has been living separately without sufficient reason after deserting the petitioner and hence she is also not entitled for maintenance, and (iii) the respondent No.1 is employed and has sufficient means to maintain herself.

4. I find merit in the first ground urged. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. ( Section 144 of BNSS) limits the claim of maintenance of the child until he or she attains majority. However, by virtue of Section 125 (1)(c) of Cr.P.C. ( Section 144 (1)(c) of the BNSS), an unmarried daughter, even though she has attained majority, is entitled to maintenance, where she is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, unable to maintain herself. The scheme under Section 125 (1)(c) of Cr.P.C. ( Section 144 (1)(c) of BNSS), thus, contemplates that a 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. Here, the petitioner does not have a case at all that the respondent No.2 is unable to maintain herself because of any physical or mental abnormality or injury. On the other hand, it has come out in evidence that she is a practising lawyer.

5. The question whether an unmarried Hindu daughter who has attained majority is entitled to claim maintenance from her father in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. ( Section 144 of BNSS), although she is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or injury, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata & Ors. [ (2002) 5 SCC 422 ]. In that case, the mother of a minor, unmarried girl, filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from her father before the Family Court. The Family Court allowed the claim. The father challenged the order of the Family Court before the High Court in revision, mainly contending that the daughter is entitled to maintenance till she attains majority and not thereafter. The High Court, though, accepted the legal position that under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., a minor daughter is entitled to maintenance from her parents only till she attains majority, declined to interfere with the orders passed by the Family Court, taking the cue from Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act , 1956 (for short, ‘HAMA’). The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in upholding the order of the Family Court, by which it granted maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to the daughter even after her attaining majority but till her marriage, taking the view that it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings as otherwise the party would be forced to file another petition under Section 20(3) of the HAMA for further maintenance. Again, the question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Abhilasha v. Parkash & Ors. [(2021) 13 SCC 99]. It was found that the judgment in Jagdish Jugtawat (supra) cannot be read to lay down the ratio that