Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 7191
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sandipkumar C. More, J
Murlidhar Krushnarao Virulkar – Appellant
Versus
Neha Virulkar – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 280/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akshay Joshi, Dhiraj
Family Courts possess the jurisdiction to grant maintenance to an unmarried adult daughter who is unable to support herself by invoking personal law, even in the absence of physical or mental disability, to prevent the multiplicity of legal proceedings and ensure access to support.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125; Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 20(3); Family Courts Act, 1984 - Maintenance claim by unmarried daughter after attaining majority - Whether maintenance is allowable in the absence of physical or mental abnormality - Family Court, under its combined jurisdiction, is empowered to grant maintenance to an unmarried daughter who is unable to maintain herself, even after attaining majority, by invoking the provisions of personal law to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. (Paras 9, 14, 15 and 16)
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope - The court should not interfere with orders that promote the interest of a party and prevent unjust hardships or the necessity of filing fresh proceedings where the court is already vested with the requisite jurisdiction. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
An application for maintenance was filed by an unmarried daughter against her father. The lower court granted monthly maintenance from the date of the petition. The father challenged this order, contending that under the applicable criminal procedure code, maintenance for an unmarried daughter is restricted to those suffering from physical or mental disability, a position supported by recent judicial precedents regarding the power of a Magistrate. The father argued that the daughter, having attained majority and possessing no disability, was not eligible for maintenance under the statute invoked.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that while a Magistrate exercising jurisdiction solely under the criminal procedure code might be restricted regarding claims by a major daughter without disability, a Family Court occupies a different position. By virtue of the statutes governing family courts, the court holds the jurisdiction to address matters under both the criminal procedure code and civil personal laws. Consequently, the court held that it is permissible to grant maintenance in such instances to prevent the applicant from being burdened with filing separate, redundant litigation.
Issues: Whether a Family Court is restricted to the provisions of the criminal procedure code when deciding maintenance, or whether it can invoke personal law rights to grant maintenance to an unmarried adult daughter regardless of physical or mental disability.
Ratio Decidendi: A Family Court acts with broader jurisdictional scope than a Magistrate. It can enforce statutory rights provided under personal maintenance laws alongside the criminal procedure code. To prevent the miscarriage of justice and unnecessary multiplicity of litigation, the court is justified in granting maintenance to an unmarried adult daughter who is unable to support herself, even if the application technically initiated under the procedural code did not specifically allege disability.
Result: Revision application dismissed and impugned order upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the maintenance dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding maintenance for major unmarried daughter. (Para 6 , 7 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. jurisdictional distinction between magistrate and family court regarding maintenance. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. family courts have jurisdiction under hama, 1956 to grant maintenance. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
The present dispute is between father and daughter in respect of grant of maintenance amount. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant/father whereas learned counsel for the non-applicant/daughter despite appearance, remained absent.
2. The applicant/father is challenging the judgment and order passed by learned Family Court No. 2, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as “learned Family Court”) on 03.03.2022 in Petition No. E-299 of 2016 filed by the present non-applicant/daughter.
3. Under the impugned order, learned Family Court has granted maintenance @ Rs. 3500/- per month to the non-applicant/daughter from the date of filing of petition i.e. from 05.07.2016 till she gets married or starts earning, whichever occurs earlier. It is also ordered that the maintenance amount if any paid by the present applicant/father i.e. respondent therein at interim stage, should be adjusted in the total maintenance amount.
4. Background facts leading to this revision application are as under:-
5. The non-applicant/daughter filed the aforesaid petition for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr.P.C.”) against her father i.e. present applicant on 05.07.2016 with allegations that she was harassed by the applicant/ father and therefore, constrained to live with her sister at Nagpur. She had also claimed that she is entitled for maintenance from the applicant as even after attaining the majority. She is not having any source of income and therefore, unable to maintain herself. Though the applicant/father had resisted said application before the learned Family Court, but since he could not pay the interim maintenance amount, his defence was struck off. Thereafter, the learned Family Court proceeded further and after conducting trial, granted the maintenance amount under impugned order as mentioned above. Hence, this revision application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant/father heavily relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abhilasha Vs. Parkash and others , (2021) 13 SCC 99. He also placed reliance on the recent judgment of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Gireesh Kumar N. Vs. Rajani K.V. , 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 46. He submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly held that the unmarried daughter unable to maintain herself is not at all entitled to claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. unless she is suffering from any physical or mental abnormality/injury. He further pointed out that the High Court of Kerala in the case of Gireesh Kumar (supra) has also followed the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abhilasha (supra). It is significant to note that learned counsel for the applicant/father by relying only upon the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned above, submitted his arguments to discard the impugned order. He did not raise any objection about the quantum of maintenance and also did not dispute the contention of the non-applicant/daughter that she is unable to maintain herself.
7. However, the learned counsel for the applicant/father conceded for granting liberty to the non-applicant/daughter to take recourse to Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short “HAMA, 1956”) for claiming maintenance from the applicant/father. Thus, from the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/father, it is evident that he is not having any objection for filing application by the non-applicant/daughter under Section 20(3) of HAMA, 1956. He is challenging the impugne
