IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. L. OZA, M. M. DUTT, JJ.
Vijaya Manohar Arbat – Appellant
Versus
Kashirao Rajaram Sawai – Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 378 of 1986
Decided On : 18-02-1987
MAINTENANCE - SECTION 125(1)(D) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - FATHER'S RIGHT TO CLAIM MAINTENANCE FROM MARRIED DAUGHTER - INTERPRETATION OF 'HIS FATHER OR MOTHER' - LIABILITY OF SON AND DAUGHTER TO MAINTAIN PARENTS.
Fact of the Case:
A married daughter, Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Arbat, challenged the maintainability of her father's application under Section 125(1)(d) Criminal Procedure Code, claiming maintenance from her. The magistrate overruled the preliminary objection, and the High Court affirmed the order, holding that the application was maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that Section 125(1)(d) Criminal Procedure Code entitles a father to claim maintenance from his married daughter if he is unable to maintain himself and the daughter has sufficient means.
Issues: Whether a father is entitled to claim maintenance from his married daughter under Section 125(1)(d) Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the pronoun 'his' in clause (d) of Section 125(1) Criminal Procedure Code to include both male and female, relying on Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1) of the General Clauses Act. It rejected the argument that the report of the Joint Committee on the Criminal Procedure Code Bill, 1973, limited the liability to maintain parents to sons only.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order that the father's application for maintenance was maintainable.
Key Points: - The pronoun "his" in clause (d) of Section 125(1) includes both male and female, so parents can claim maintenance from their daughter (!) (!) . - A father is entitled to claim maintenance from his married daughter if he is unable to maintain himself and she has sufficient means (!) (!) . - The court must be satisfied that the daughter has sufficient means independently of her husband, and that the parent is unable to maintain himself or herself (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
DUTT, J.
1. The only point that is involved in this appeal by special leave is whether respondent 1 is entitled to claim maintenance from the appellant, his married daughter, under Section 125(1)(d) Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The appellant Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Arbat, a medical practitioner at Kalyan, District Thane, is the married daughter of respondent 1 Kashirao Rajaram Sawai, by his first wife. Her mother died in 1948. Thereafter, respondent 1 remarried and is living with his second wife. Respondent 1 filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Court, Kalyan, claiming maintenance from the appellant, his daughter, at the rate of Rs. 500 per month on the ground that he was unable to maintain himself.
3. At the outset, the appellant raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application on the ground that Section 125(1)(d) Criminal Procedure Code does not entitle a father to claim maintenance from his daughter. The preliminary objection was overruled by the learned magistrate, and it was held by him that the application was maintainable. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned magistrate, the appellant moved the Bombay High Court in revision. The High Court affirmed the order of the learned magistrate and held that the application of a father for maintenance who is unable to maintain himself is maintainable against his married daughter having sufficient means. In that view of the matter, the High Court dismissed the revisional application of the appellant. Hence this appeal by special leave.
4. Sub-section (1) of Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code provides as under:
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided 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, if the magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.
5. Sub-section (1) of Section 125 confers power on the Magistrate of the First Class to order a person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of some of his close relations like wife, children, father and mother under certain circumstances. It has been observed by this Court in Bhagwan Dutt vs. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386, that the object of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code is to provide a summary remedy to save dependants from destitution and vagrancy and thus to serve a social purpose.
6. There can be no doubt that it is the moral obligation of a son or a daughter to maintain his or her parents. It is not desirable that even though a son or a daughter has sufficient means, his or her parents would starve. Apart from any law, the Indian society casts a duty on the children of a person to maintain their parents if they are not in a position to maintain themselves. It is also their duty to look after their parents when they become old and infirm.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has urged that under clause (d) of section 125(1) a father is not entitled to claim maintenance from his daughter whether married or not. Our attention has been drawn to the use of the pronoun 'h
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.