JUDGMENT

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the respective parties.

2. The revision is filed by the applicant, thereby challenging the common judgment passed by the learned Family Court, Nagpur in Petition No. E-130 of 2014 granting maintenance to the children Rs.7000/- each to the non-applicant nos. 2 and 3 from the date of judgment.

3. Shri Lodha, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the non-applicant wife is a teacher in the Nagar Parishad School. However, still she had failed to bear expenses of the non-applicant nos. 2 and 3 children. The applicant is working as a teacher, however, he has to maintain old aged parents. The non-applicant nos. 2 and 3 have become major. The impugned judgment ignoring such vital aspect of the matter, that the non-applicant nos. 2 and 3 have become major has gone ahead to grant maintenance of Rs.7000/- each to Ku. Sachi D/o Anand Chouhan, who was aged 23 years at the time filing of the revision application and Master Aman Chouhan, who attained majority during the pendency of the revision application. Shri Lodha, learned counsel for the applicant therefore submits that both the non-applicant nos. 2 and 3 are not entitled for the maintenance and hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Shri Lodha, learned counsel for the applicant has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhilasha Vs. Parkash and others reported in 2021(13) SCC 99 to buttress his submission that a major unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as “HAMA, 1956”) provided that she pleads and proves that she is unable to maintain herself for enforcement of which right her application/suit has to be under Section 20 of the HAMA, 1956. The non-applicant no.2/daughter being major at the time of passing of the impugned order dated 07.12.2019 granting maintenance to the unmarried daughter is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Shri Lodha, learned counsel, further submits that the object and purpose of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”), is to provide a speedy and summary remedy for securing maintenance to a wife, children, or parents, as the case may be. He further submits that the remedy available under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is distinct from the right to claim maintenance under the HAMA, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the non- applicant/daughter had an alternative remedy to claim maintenance from her father under Section 20(3) of the HAMA. Hence, the impugned judgment granting maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the daughter was unjust, illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. Shri Lodha, learned counsel further submits that the non- applicant no.3 is concerned, he is also become major during pendency of the revision and non-applicant no.3 is also not entitled for maintenance. As per the provisions of under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. only the minor child are entitled for seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The impugned order dated 17.12.2019 is therefore illegal, unjust and arbitrary passed without application of mind and hence liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. As against this Shri Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant/wife and non-applicant nos. 2 and 3, strongly opposed the present revision application on the ground that the application for grant of maintenance is maintainable under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. The reliance placed upon the judgment of the Abhilasha Vs. Parkash (supra), is misconceived and liable to be rejected.

8. Shri Sahu, learned counsel for the non-applicant/wife and children further reliance the judgment of this Court in the case of Murlidhar Krushnarao Virulkar Vs. Ku. Neha reported in 2024