The interim maintenance for a major unmarried daughter may be claimed under Muslim Personal Law, despite restrictions under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

ORDER

Dated this the 11^th day of June, 2025 The challenge in this Crl.M.C. is against Annexure E order of the Family Court, Attingal, directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to his wife and daughter at the rate of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. The essential facts are as under;

The 2^nd respondent wife had claimed maintenance on the premise that she was not employed and had no independent source of income. The 3^rd respondent daughter, though a major, claimed maintenance on the ground that she is unmarried and is pursuing her studies. The Family Court found substance in the claim and ordered interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- to the 2^nd respondent and Rs.10,000/- to the 3^rd respondent till she completes her education and thereafter, at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the available evidence would indicate that the 2^nd respondent is in ownership and possession of 3.5 Acres of landed property and is deriving substantial income from it. Further, the 2^nd respondent is getting an income of Rs.3,000/- from her job in a Milk Marketing Society.

3. The direction to pay maintenance to the 3^rd respondent is challenged on the ground that a major child is not entitled to maintenance. With reference to Section 125 (1)(c) of the Code, it is contended that an unmarried major girl will be entitled for maintenance only if such person is unable to maintain herself by reason of any physical or mental abnormality, or injury.

Precedential support for this contention is sought to be drawn from the Division Bench decision of this Court in Muhammed Shaji v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KHC

21].

4. Learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the Crl.M.C, challenging the interim order of maintenance is liable to be dismissed in limine. According to the Counsel, the entitlement or otherwise of the respondents has to be decided based on the evidence to be tendered. The mere assertion that the 2^nd respondent is in ownership and possession of landed property and is earning income by working in a Cooperative Society cannot be a ground for interfering with the interim order of maintenance.

5. With regard to the claim for maintenance by the daughter, it is submitted that even in Muhammed Shaji (supra) the Division Bench has made it clear that though a major unmarried daughter is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 , she may otherwise be eligible for maintenance in terms of Muslim Personal Law and the Family Court can entertain the plea for maintenance under the Muslim Personal Law. It is pointed out that a petition has already been filed before the Family Court to treat the 3^rd respondent’s claim for maintenance as one made under the Muslim Personal Law.

6. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for respondents, the question as to whether the 2^nd respondent is deriving income from the landed property belonging to her has to be decided based on the evidence tendered by the parties. At the same time, there is merit in the contention of the daughter, who is a major and pursuing her studies, cannot be granted maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Going by Section 125 (1)(c), if the child has attained majority, she will be entitled for maintenance only if she is having any physical or mental abnormality or injury and is hence, unable to maintain herself.

7. In Muhammed Shaji (supra), while declaring that a major daughter is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the Division Bench has made it clear that the claim can be and ought to be entertained under the Muslim Personal Law. Therefore, if a petition for considering the 3^rd respondent’s claim under Muslim