Back
1996 Supreme(P&H) 500
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
P.K.Jain, J.
Gurmit Singh
Versus
Gurdev Kaur
Criminal Revision No. 12 of 1996,
Decided On : MARCH 23, 1996
An order passed under section 125 of the Code granting maintenance to a minor child itself ceases to operate on the child's attaining majority, provided such child is not, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself.
Headnote:
MAINTENANCE - ORDER - MINOR CHILD - MAJORITY - CESSATION OF ORDER - SECTION 125, 127 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - An order passed under section 125 of the Code granting maintenance to a minor child itself ceases to operate on the child's attaining majority, provided such child is not, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Gurmit Singh, was ordered to pay maintenance to his wife and two minor daughters under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. After some time, the petitioner stopped paying maintenance. The wife and daughters filed an execution application for the enforcement of the maintenance order. The petitioner filed an application for dismissal of the execution application on the ground that his daughters had attained majority and were not entitled to maintenance anymore. The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petitioner's application and directed him to pay the arrears of maintenance allowance to his daughters upto the period immediately preceding the date of filing of the application for dismissal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that an order passed under section 125 of the Code granting maintenance to a minor child itself ceases to operate on the child's attaining majority, provided such child is not, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself. The court further held that it is open to a father to raise such a plea in defence to the enforcement of the order of maintenance in execution proceedings, and he is not obliged to apply under section 127 of the Code for cancellation of the maintenance order.
Issues: Whether an order passed under section 125 of the Code granting maintenance to a minor child shall cease to operate itself on the child's attaining majority, or remains enforceable till it is cancelled under section 127 of the Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of sections 125 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the decisions of various High Courts to hold that an order passed under section 125 of the Code granting maintenance to a minor child itself ceases to operate on the child's attaining majority, provided such child is not, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself. The court also held that it is open to a father to raise such a plea in defence to the enforcement of the order of maintenance in execution proceedings, and he is not obliged to apply under section 127 of the Code for cancellation of the maintenance order.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order of the Judicial Magistrate.
P.K.Jain, J.
1. In present petition filed under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the following interesting question of law has arisen:-
"Whether an order passed under section 125 of the Code, granting maintenance to a minor child, shall cease to operate itself on the childs attaining majority, or remains enforceable till it is cancelled under section 127 of the Code".
The backdrop giving rise to this question is that the petitioner-Gurmit Singh is the husband of Gurdev Kaur (respondent No. 1) and father of Narinder Pal Kaur and Beant Kaur (respondent Nos. 2 and 3). On an application filed under section 125 of the Code, the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at a certain rate to the respondents by order dated 15.12.1990. The petitioner continued to pay the maintenance as allowed for some time. On 14.9.1992, the respondents filed an execution application for the enforcement of the order dated 15.12.1990 for the period with effect from 11.3.1992 to 10.9.1992.
2. On 9.7.1993, the petitioner moved an application for dismissal of the aforesaid execution application (Annexure P.1) on the grounds that his daughter Narinder Pal Kaur was major and not a minor on the date of the passing of the order dated 15.12.1990 itself and that his second daughter Beant Kaur attained majority in the year 1991, and as such he was not liable to pay maintenance allowance to his said daughters for the aforesaid period. Shri I.S. Bedi, Advocate, counsel for the applicant (petitioner herein) tendered a sum of Rs. 1800/- payable to Smt. Gurdev Kaur (respondent No. 1) on account of maintenance for the period 11.3.1992 to 10.9.1992 and made a statement that Narinder Pal Kaur and Beant Kaur (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein) had become major and were not entitled to get any maintenance for the said period.
3. Instead of deciding the objections raised by the present petitioner, the Judicial Magistrate issued conditional warrants of arrest against him on 5.2.1994 which order was set aside by a Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 159 of 1994 on 27.1.1995 with a direction to the said Judicial Magistrate to decide the objections raised by the present petitioner by a speaking order.
4. In compliance with the directions of this Court, the Judicial Magistrate, after obtaining a reply to the application and recording evidence of the parties, has come to the conclusion that Narinder Pal Kaur (respondent No. 2) attained majority on 16.8.1989 and Beant Kaur (respondent No. 3) become major in the year 1991. It has also been found that Narinder Pal Kaur and Beant Kaur are not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality. On the basis of these findings, the Judicial Magistrate has held that Narinder Pal Kaur and Beant Kaur are not entitled to claim maintenance with effect from 9.7.1993 i.e. the date on which the present petitioner had filed the application (Annexure P.1) and the petitioner has been directed to pay the arrears of maintenance allowance to his said daughters upto the period immediately preceding 9.7.1993. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the said order in the present proceedings.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order and the material placed on this record.
6. Shri J.S. Randhawa, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that after attaining majority Narinder Pal Kaur and Beant Kaur (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) were not entitled to claim or enforce maintenance in pursuance of the order dated 15.12.1990, and as such on an objection raised by the petitioner by his application dated 9.7.1993 (Annexure P.1) during the execution proceedings, the petitioner was not liable to pay any maintenance allowance to them for the period with effect from 11.3.1992 to 10.9.1992. According to the learned counsel, the original order dated 15.12.1990 granting ma
