A major daughter can only claim maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, not under Section 125 CrPC unless incapacitated.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNISH KUMAR, J

1. Heard Shri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and Shri Rohit Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

2. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 30.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 280 of 2023; Kumari Neha Pandey vs. Anurag Pandey under Section 125 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (here-in-after referred as CrPC) by Principal Judge, Family Court, District Sultanpur.

3. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the respondent no. 2 is major in age and it was disclosed in the application under Section 125 CrPC itself, therefore, the maintenance could not have been allowed in the proceeding(s) under Section 125 CrPC and if the court was of the view that a major daughter can claim maintenance under Section 20 (3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the proceedings could have been converted and after trial as a civil suit in accordance with law, the order could have been passed. He further submits that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Abhilasha vs. Parkash and others ; (2021) 13 SCC 99 , has wrongly and illegally been interpreted by the trial court. Thus, the submission is that the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and the revision is liable to be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, though opposed the prayer of the revisionist on the ground that the respondent no. 2 is in need of money, but could not contradict the legal position as argued by learned counsel for the revisionist and fairly submits that the impugned judgment and order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the concerned Family Court for converting and deciding afresh under Section 20 (3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 to avoid multiplicity of cases and the same may be directed to be decided in a time bound manner. To which there is no objection by learned counsel for the revisionist.

5. In view of above and consensus among learned counsels for the parties that being legal issue, this revision can be decided on the material placed on record of this revision.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records.

7. The respondent no. 2 had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance from the revisionist. The respondent no. 2; daughter of the revisionist was major in age at the time of filing of the application and it was disclosed in the application under Section 125 CrPC.

8. Section 125 CrPC provides that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his legitimate or illegitimate minor child whether, married or not, unable to maintain itself, a Magistrate of the first class, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of such child at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate deems fit. Proviso appended to Sub- section (1) provides that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority. Section 125 (1) CrPC is extracted here-in-below:

"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.-(1) If any person having 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