Back
$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: December 03, 2025 + CRL.REV.P. 312/2023 & CRL.M.A. 7773/2023 SHRI ARUN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Ragini Tripathi and Mr. B.K. Tripathi, Advocates.
versus SMT. SARLA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate (through VC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
AMIT MAHAJAN
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The petition was filed under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to challenge an order passed by the Family Court awarding interim maintenance of ₹45,000 per month to the respondents, which includes the petitioner’s wife and daughter (!) .
The marriage of the petitioner and Respondent No.1 took place in 2001, and they have two children in custody of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2, the daughter, filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC claiming maintenance (!) (!) .
The Family Court ordered the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 until certain conditions are met (e.g., remarriage or gainful employment for Respondent No.1 and marriage or gainful employment for Respondent No.2) (!) .
The Court noted that Respondent No.2, being major and not suffering from any disability, was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC but could be entitled under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA Act) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that a major daughter without physical or mental incapacity can claim maintenance under the HAMA Act, and her filing under Section 125 of the CrPC is permissible to avoid multiplicity of proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
The Court determined the petitioner’s income and expenses, including deductions for dependents, and found that the petitioner’s net income was sufficient to justify the maintenance award (!) (!) (!) .
It was clarified that, at this stage, the order pertains to interim maintenance, and the final adjudication will occur after the parties have presented their evidence. The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, considering the balance of equities and the ongoing proceedings (!) (!) .
The petition was ultimately dismissed, affirming the Family Court’s order awarding maintenance based on the combined application of relevant laws and principles (!) .
In summary, the Court upheld the Family Court’s decision to grant interim maintenance to the petitioner’s major daughter under the HAMA Act, recognizing her entitlement despite her age, and dismissed the challenge to this order.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) read with Section 482 of the CrPC to set aside the order dated 13.01.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) in MT No. 152/2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the learned Family Court awarded a sum of ₹45,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondents.
2. The marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No.1 was solemnized on 04.03.2001 and two children were born out of the wedlock, who are in the custody of Respondent No.1.
3. Respondent No.1 (wife of the petitioner) and Respondent No.2 (daughter of the petitioner) jointly filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the learned Family Court claiming maintenance from the petitioner.
4. By the impugned order, the learned Family Court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹45,000 per month as interim maintenance to the respondents (wife and daughter of the petitioner) from the date of filing of the petition to Respondent No.1 till she remarries or is gainfully employed and to Respondent No.2 till she marries or is gainfully employed.
5. The learned Family Court noted that Respondent No.2 was major at the time of filing the petition and was not suffering from any mental or physical disabilities and hence, could not claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC from the petitioner. However, the learned Trial Court noted that Respondent No.2 would be entitled to maintenance from the petitioner under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (‘HAMA Act’).
6. Learned Family Court relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case Abhilasha v. Parkash : (2021) 13 SCC 99 and held that if the Family Court has the jurisdiction to decide cases under Section 125 of the CrPC and Section 20 of the HAMA Act, then in an appropriate case, it can exercise jurisdiction under both the Acts and can grant maintenance to unmarried daughter even though she has become major.
7. The learned Family Court determined the monthly income of the petitioner to be ₹1,00,000/- per month. It was noted that the petitioner in his affidavit claimed that his mother is dependent deducting the same from his income his net monthly income was determined to be ₹90,000/- per month. Considering the aforesaid the learned Family Court awarded interim maintenance of ₹45,000/- per month to the respondents.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that Respondent No.2 is a major daughter, and is not entitled to maintenance from the petitioner under Section 125 of the CrPC as she neither suffers from any physical; nor any mental abnormality due to which she is unable to maintain herself.
9. He submits that the reliance of the learned Family Court on the judgment of Abhilasha v Parkash (Supra) is misplaced, as Respondent No.2 had already gained the age of majority at the time of filing the application under Section 125 of the CrPC.
10. He submits that the learned Family Court did not appreciate the facts that the petitioner has to spend ₹13,000/- per month on EMIs, ₹18,000/- per month on loan instalments, ₹17,142/- per month on rent and ₹20,000/- per month on medical expenses. He submits that after the aforesaid necessary expenses the petitioner is left with a balance of only ₹15,000/- per month.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order is well reasoned and warrants no interference by this Court.
12. He submits that Respondent No.2 is the unmarried major daughter of the petitioner who is entitled to maintenance from the petitioner under Section 20 of the HAMA Act. He submits that the learned Family Court has awarded interim maintenance to the respondents on a combined reading of Section 125 of the CrPC and Section 20 of the HAMA Act rightly placing reliance on the judgment of the Abhilasha v Parkash (Supra).
13. He submits that Respondent No.2 is still studying in college and she wo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
