ORDER

The husband of the first respondent filed this revision, challenging the maintenance granted in favour of his wife and two female children.

2. According to the first respondent, the marriage between the petitioner and herself was solemnised on 03.02.1993 and the petitioner is working as a Physical Education Teacher in Government School. Due to some discord, the first respondent was living separately along with her daughters. Thereafter, they filed the petition in M.C.No.15 of 2018 on behalf of the major daughter and also claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for each petitioner totally Rs.30,000 per month. The petitioner filed counter denying some allegations made in the petition and he admitted the relationship and he raised specific plea that the second and third petitioners attained majority and hence they are not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

3.The first respondent/wife examined herself as PW1 and also respondent/ daughter were also examined PW2 and PW3. To support their claim, she marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The petitioner/husband examined himself as RW1 and marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R.8.

4. The learned trial Judge, considering the above documents and oral evidence, granted maintenance to all the petitioners. The learned trial Judge specifically addressed the issue of maintainability of the claim made by the unmarried daughter. The learned trial Judge also considered the economic condition of the petitioner also and granted maintenance to the unmarried major daughter also. Challenging the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed this revision.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the unmarried daughters, who have been already attained majority, are not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He relied the provision contained in Section 125(b) Cr.P.C. But he fairly submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of reported in has held that even though claim was made under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the family Court has power to grant maintenance to the unmarried daughter till her marriage by invoking the section 20 of the Hindu adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. Therefore the grant of maintenance against the unmarried daughter in this case by the family Court is in accordance with law. But he prayed to allow this revision in respect of one of the daughter namely, Sindhupriya/second respondent herein who got married in February 2022 pending this revision.

6. The respondent counsel admitted above submission of the petitioner counsel that the daughter got married and also reiterated the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above stated

Judgment.

7. This Court considered rival submission and perused the impugned order and the precedent relied by the parties.

8. Now the question in this case is whether the unmarried daughter is entitled to maintenance in the petiiton filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before the family Court, with aid of Section 20 of the Hindu adoption and maintenance Act, 1956?.

9. The said question is no longer res integra and the same was answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by three Judges bench in favour of the unmarried daughter in the following cases:

9.1. In the case of Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata, reported in at page 422

2.The petitioner is the father of Kumari Rakhi,

Respondent 3 herein, who is a minor unmarried girl. Considering the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by Respondent 1, wife of the petitioner and mother of Respondent 3, claiming maintenance for herself and her two children, the Family Court by order dated 22-7-2000 granted maintenance @ Rs 500 per month to each of the applicants. The petitioner herein filed a revision petition before the High Court assailing the order of the Family Court on the ground, inter alia, that Respondent 3 was entitled to maintenance only till she attains majority and not thereafter. Considering the point the learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the legal p