A Family Court having concurrent jurisdiction under Section 125 CrPC and Section 20 of the HAMA Act may grant maintenance to an unmarried major daughter, despite a defect in the filing, to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and ensure the fulfillment of the father's statutory maintenance obligations.

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 upon him and he spends ₹10,000/- per month on his mother, after

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 responde