Back
2026 Supreme(MP) 286
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J.
Shri Ganga Singh (Handicapped) – Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Devi Singh And Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No.4968 of 2024
Decided On : 10-07-2026
For the Petitioner:Shri Ravendra Kumar Tiwari with Ms. Taneyaa Manucha, Advocates
For the Respondent:Ms. Priya Mishra, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Mentioning a wrong legal provision in a maintenance application does not invalidate the claim if the court possesses the requisite jurisdiction. A major unmarried daughter is entitled to maintenance under Section 20(3) of the HAM Act if she cannot maintain herself, regardless of any disability.
Headnote:
(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 125 -- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 -- S. 20(3) -- maintainability of maintenance application -- wife and unmarried major daughter filed joint application u/s. 125 of CrPC for maintenance -- interim maintenance granted to both -- prima facie, application maintainable only on behalf of wife because daughter was major on date of application -- however, daughter entitled to maintenance u/s. 20(3) of HAM Act -- no illegality in order of interim maintenance -- Family Court competent to evaluate and decide joint application under appropriate provisions of law. 2000 Supreme (Raj.) 662, Cr. R. No. 3781 of 2014 decided on 10.2.2015 (UP), Cr. R. No. 83 of 2024 decided on 2.8.2024 (UP) and Cr. R. P. No. 312 of 2023 & Cr. M. A. No. 7773 of 2023 decided on 3.12.2025 (Del.) referred to. (2015) 3 SCC 123, (2021) 14 SCC 99, Civil Appeal No. 5141 of 2011 decided on 10.3.2022 and 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638 distinguished. [Paras 6, 9 & 11 to 16
(2) Practice (Civil) -- mere mentioning of wrong provision in application/petition does not come in way of justice -- Court cannot refuse to grant such relief on aforesaid ground which otherwise may be granted in existing facts and circumstances of case. (2004) 12 SCC 278, (2009) 9 SCC 173 and 2024 (8) Supreme 160 followed. [Paras 8 & 9
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 125 & fganw nÙkd v©j Òj.k&i¨"k.k vfèkfu;e] 1956 & èkkjk 20¼3½ & Òj.ki¨"k.k vkosnu pyus ;¨X; g¨uk & iRuh rFkk vfookfgr o;Ld iq=h us Òj.ki¨"k.k d¢ fy, naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh èkkjk 125 d¢ vèkhu la;qä vkosnu çLrqr fd;k & n¨u¨a dk varfje Òj.ki¨"k.k eatwj fd;k x;k & çFken`"V~;k] vkosnu d¢ fnukad d¨ iq=h d¢ o;Ld g¨us d¢ dkj.k d¢oy iRuh dh v¨j ls vkosnu pyus ;¨X; Fkk & rFkkfi] iq=h fganw nÙkd vkSj Òj.k&i¨"k.k vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 20¼3½ d¢ vèkhu Òj.ki¨"k.k dh gdnkj & varfje Òj.k&i¨"k.k d¢ vkns'k esa d¨Ã voSèkrk ugÈ & dqVqac U;k;ky; fofèk d¢ leqfpr micaèk¨a d¢ vèkhu la;qä vkosnu dk ewY;kadu djus rFkk fofu'p; djus d¢ fy, l{keA 2000 lqçhe ¼jkt-½ 662] nkafMd iqujh{k.k Ø- 3781 lu~ 2014 fu.kÊr fnukad 10-2-2015 ¼mç½] nkafMd iqujh{k.k Ø- 83 lu~ 2024 fu.kÊr fnukad 2-8-2024 ¼mç½ rFkk nkafMd iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk Ø- 312 lu~ 2023 ,oa nkafMd çdh.kZ vihy Ø- 7773 lu~ 2023 fu.kÊr fnukad 3-12-2025 ¼fnYyh½ fufnZ"VA ¼2015½ 3 ,llhlh 123] ¼2021½ 14 ,llhlh 99] flfoy vihy Ø- 5141 lu~ 2011 fu.kÊr fnukad 10-3-2022 rFkk 2022 ykboykW ¼,llh½ 638 çÒsfnrA ¼iSjk 6] 9 ,oa 11 ls 16
¼2½ çFkk ¼flfoy½ & vkosnu@vthZ esa ek= xyr micaèk dk mYys[k U;k; d¢ vkM+s ugÈ vkrk & U;k;ky; iwo¨Zä vkèkkj ij og vuqr¨"k çnku djus ls bUdkj ugÈ dj ldrk ftls ekeys d¢ rF;¨a rFkk ifjfLFkfr;¨a esa vU;Fkk çnku fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2004½ 12 ,llhlh 278] ¼2009½ 9 ,llhlh 173 rFkk 2024 ¼8½ lqçhe 160 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 9
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to interim maintenance for a major unmarried daughter based on maintainability of section 125 cr.p.c. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. wrong citation of legal provision does not bar relief if the court has jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. maintenance for major unmarried daughters under ham act requires inability to maintain oneself, not disability. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. dismissal of revision and upholding of interim maintenance order. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
ORDER :
Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J.
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner (father of the respondent 2-Raksha Singh, major daughter) challenging the order dtd.13.08.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna in MJCR No. 179/2023, whereby the Family Court has awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent 2 (major unmarried daughter) towards monthly maintenance pendente lite, however refused to award any maintenance to the respondent 1 (wife) on the ground that even prima facie, she does not appear to be legally wedded wife of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/father submits that the respondent 2 being major unmarried daughter, the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable on her behalf. She also submits that repeatedly the respondent 2 assaulted the petitioner/father and filed several complaints against him, therefore also she is not entitled to any maintenance.
3. Taking this Court to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhilasha Vs. Parkash and others , (2021) 14 SCC 99 (which is in relation to the jurisdiction of the family court); Ajay Kumar Rathee vs. Seema Rathee given in Civil Appeal No. 5141/2011 vide order dtd.10.03.2022 (which is in relation to the proposition that if the daughter does not want to maintain any relationship with the father, she is not entitled to maintenance from her father); Mrs. Akella Lalitha vs. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638 (which is in relation to the proposition that the Court cannot travel beyond the pleadings and relief); and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others , (2015) 3 SCC 123 (which is in relation to scope of revisional power of the Court), learned Counsel submits that although the respondent 2 may be entitled to maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short ‘the HAM Act’), but for getting maintenance under Section 20(3) of the HAM Act, prerequisite condition is that major unmarried daughter should suffer with some disability. With support of the aforesaid decisions, she also submits that if the respondent 2 wanted any relief of maintenance, she should have prayed for conversion of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. into the application/suit under Section 20(3) of the HAM Act and in absence thereof, neither the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for granting the maintenance nor the respondent 2 is entitled to any maintenance. With these submissions, she prays for setting aside the impugned order and for allowing the criminal revision.
4. In turn, learned counsel for the respondents 1-2 (wife and major daughter) supports the impugned order and submits that the impugned order being an interim order of awarding monthly maintenance pendente lite to a major unmarried daughter, no interference is called for therein, at the present stage, especially in light of coordinate bench decisions in the case of Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat v. Smt. Manjulata and Ors. , 2000 Supreme (Raj) 662; Mustakim v. State of U.P. and another in Crl. Revision No. 3781/2014 vide order dtd.10.02.2015; Awdhesh Singh vs. State of UP & 2 Others in Cr.R. No. 83/2024 vide order dtd.02.08.2024 (at Allahabad); and Shri Arun Kumar vs. Smt. Sarla & Anr. in Crl. Rev. P. 312/2023 & CrL. M.A. 7773/2023 vide order dtd.03.12.2025 (at Delhi).
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned order.
6. Apparen
