ORDER

Both these Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Pathanamthitta in M.C. No.89/2018 dated 25/10/2023.

2. The 1^st petitioner in the maintenance case before the Family Court is the legally wedded wife (hereinafter, wife) of the respondent therein (hereinafter, husband). Two children were born out of their wedlock. The 2^nd petitioner therein is the elder daughter. The wife and husband have been at loggerheads for many years. They are living separately. There are a series of litigations between them. The elder daughter is living with the wife, while the younger daughter is living with the husband. The wife and the elder daughter filed a maintenance case against the husband, claiming maintenance @ `45,000/- each per month. They alleged that they have no job or source of income and are unable to maintain themselves. They further alleged that the husband is working in the Merchant Navy and earns `9,00,000/- per month. The husband resisted the maintenance case. He filed a counterstatement. He raised a specific contention that the wife is working as a clerk in Matsyafed and is able to maintain herself. He further contended that the elder daughter has attained majority and hence she is not entitled to claim maintenance invoking Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).

3. The parties went on trial. On the side of the petitioners, the wife gave evidence as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 series were marked. On the side of the respondent, the husband himself gave evidence as RW1 and a witness from Matsyafed was examined as RW2. After the trial, the Family Court found that the wife is working as a Data Entry Operator at Matsyafed, she is earning a monthly salary of `21,175/- and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. So far as the elder daughter is concerned, it was found that she became a major and thus is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(1)(c) of the Cr.P.C. It has come out in evidence that the husband has taken life insurance policies in the name of the wife and Exts.B2 to B4 original certificates relating to the same were in his custody. The Family Court directed the husband to hand over those certificates to the wife and elder daughter. R.P.F.C. No.16/2024 has been filed by the wife and elder daughter challenging the impugned order rejecting their claim for maintenance. R.P.F.C. No.501/2023 has been filed by the husband challenging the direction in the impugned order to hand over Exts.B2 to B4 certificates to the wife and elder child.

4. I have heard Sri. Jacob P. Alex, the learned counsel for the wife and elder child as well as the husband who appeared in person.

5. The learned counsel for the wife and elder daughter submitted that the Family Court went wrong in declining the maintenance to both wife and elder daughter. According to the learned counsel, the appointment of the wife as a clerk in Matsyafed is a temporary and contractual one, and the meagre income she gets out of the contract employment cannot be taken as a bar in granting maintenance to her under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed on Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324]. The learned counsel further submitted that even though under Section 125(1)(c) of the Cr.PC, a daughter who attained majority is not entitled to claim maintenance from the father, a daughter who attained majority is entitled to claim maintenance from her father under Section 20(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (for short, the HAMA) till she gets married and hence the Family Court ought to have granted maintenance to the elder daughter as well invoking the provisions of the HAMA. On the other hand, the husband, who appeared in person, submitted that the wife is permanently employed at Matsyafed and earns substantial income to support herself and the elder daughter. He further contended that the wife and elder daughter had no claim under Section 20(3) of the HAMA before the Family Court and hence, at this stage, t