Married daughters are entitled to maintenance until marriage or self-sustenance as per Section 125, despite attaining majority.

JUDGEMENT

1. The sole issue is pertaining to the eligibility of a married daughter to get maintenance from his father, since applicant­ father has challenged the order of maintenance in favour of his daughter who now attained the age of majority. By impugned judgment and order dated 14.9.2011, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.1263 of 2010, the Family Court, Junagadh has awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousand only) to respondent no.2­wife and Rs.6,000/­ (Rupees six thousand only) to respondent no.3­daughter of the present petitioner.

2. So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, on perusal of entire record, it becomes certain and clear that the Family Court, Junagadh has taken care of each and every aspect of the matter while considering the quantum of maintenance. It cannot be ignored that petitioner herein is a salaried person and getting approximately Rs.24,000/­ (Rupees twenty four thousand only) per month as salary, certificate to that effect has been produced at Exh.17 before the trial Court.

3. In addition to such fix salary, petitioner is also holding agricultural land of his own house. The income from agricultural land is considered as Rs.2,00,000/­ (Rupees two lacs only) p.a.

4. Therefore, so far as respondent no.2­wife is concerned, there is no substance in the impugned order when the amount of Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousand only) is awarded in her favour considering the over all facts and circumstances emerging from record.

5. Whereas, so far as amount of maintenance awarded to respondent no.3, daughter of the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted by the petitioner that now she is major and therefore not entitled to maintenance. For the purpose, petitioner is relying upon the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and judgment in the case of Rama Chandra Sahu v. Tapaswini Sahu, reported in 2007 CRI.L.J. 2241, wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that order of granting maintenance to major unmarried daughter in not proper if she is not disable and able to maintain herself. However, as against one such judgment, wherein, all the reported cases are probably not brought to the notice of the Court and since they are not referred, when there are more than one judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself that even major daughter is entitled to maintenance till she gets married and more particularly, when such judgments are not overruled in the case of Rama Chandra Sahu (Supra), it cannot be considered as a binding precedent and therefore, it cannot be held that major unmarried daughter is not entitled to claim maintenance.

6. It would be relevant to consider the following discussion in the case of Parmar Manjulaben Girishbhai v. Parmar Ganpatbhai @ Girishbhai Khodabhai Parmar, reported in 2013 CR.L.R. (GUJ.) 794: “9. The petitioners have relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Jagdish Jagtawat vs. Manju Lata reported in 2002(5) SCC 422. In the said judgment, the Bench of three Judges of the Apex Court has relied upon the previous judgment in case of Noor Suba Khatoon vs. Mohd. Quasim reported in 1997 6 SCC 233, deciding not to interfere with the order of the Family Court granting maintenance to the daughter even after she becomes major considering that the order passed by the Family Court was based on combined reading of Section­125 of Code of Criminal Procedure and Section­20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Thereby, it is argued that the benefit of personal law or maintenance can be given to the applicant but it is otherwise ineligible under Section­125 to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. Thereby, it is further submitted that on co