Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36842
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J
Ganga Singh – Appellant
Versus
Devi Singh – Respondent
CRR No-4968-2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ravendra Kumar Tiwari, Taneyaa Manucha
For the Respondents: Priya Mishra
Mentioning a wrong legal provision in an application does not invalidate the claim or the court's order if the court possesses the requisite jurisdiction under another applicable law to grant the relief.
Headnote:The case involves a challenge to an interim maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The petitioner contested the award of maintenance to his major unmarried daughter, arguing that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable for a major daughter and that relief under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act requires the daughter to suffer from a disability. The court found that the Family Court possesses concurrent jurisdiction to grant relief under both the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The primary issue was whether the mention of a wrong legal provision (Section 125 Cr.P.C. instead of Section 20(3) of the HAM Act) invalidates the claim for maintenance by a major unmarried daughter. The court reasoned that quoting the wrong provision of law does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power exists and can be traced to a source available in law. Furthermore, the court clarified that under Section 20(3) of the HAM Act, the only prerequisite for a major unmarried daughter to receive maintenance is her inability to maintain herself out of her own earnings or property, and no physical or mental disability is required. Resultantly and with the aforesaid observations, this criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to interim maintenance for a major unmarried daughter based on maintainability of the application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. concurrent jurisdiction of family courts under crpc and the ham act. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. mentioning a wrong legal provision does not invalidate a claim if jurisdiction exists. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. maintenance for major unmarried daughters under ham act requires only inability to maintain oneself. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. dismissal of revision and upholding of the interim maintenance order. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
ORDER
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner (father of the respondent 2-Raksha Singh, major daughter) challenging the order dtd.13.08.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna in MJCR No. 179/2023, whereby the Family Court has awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent 2 (major unmarried daughter) towards monthly maintenance pendente lite, however refused to award any maintenance to the respondent 1 (wife) on the ground that even prima facie, she does not appear to be legally wedded wife of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/father submits that the respondent 2 being major unmarried daughter, the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable on her behalf. She also submits that repeatedly the respondent 2 assaulted the petitioner/father and filed several complaints against him, therefore also she is not entitled to any maintenance.
3. Taking this Court to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhilasha Vs. Parkash and others , (2021) 14 SCC 99 (which is in relation to the jurisdiction of the family court); Ajay Kumar Rathee vs. Seema Rathee given in Civil Appeal No. 5141/2011 vide order dtd.10.03.2022 (which is in relation to the proposition that if the daughter does not want to maintain any relationship with the father, she is not entitled to maintenance from her father); Mrs. Akella Lalitha vs. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638 (which is in relation to the proposition that the Court cannot travel beyond the pleadings and relief); and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others , (2015) 3 SCC 123 (which is in relation to scope of revisional power of the Court), learned Counsel submits that although the respondent 2 may be entitled to maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short ‘the HAM Act’), but for getting maintenance under Section 20(3) of the HAM Act, prerequisite condition is that major unmarried daughter should suffer with some disability. With support of the aforesaid decisions, she also submits that if the respondent 2 wanted any relief of maintenance, she should have prayed for conversion of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. into the application/suit under Section 20(3) of the HAM Act and in absence thereof, neither the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for granting the maintenance nor the respondent 2 is entitled to any maintenance. With these submissions, she prays for setting aside the impugned order and for allowing the criminal revision.
4. In turn, learned counsel for the respondents 1-2 (wife and major daughter) supports the impugned order and submits that the impugned order being an interim order of awarding monthly maintenance pendente lite to a major unmarried daughter, no interference is called for therein, at the present stage, especially in light of coordinate bench decisions in the case of Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat v. Smt. Manjulata and Ors. , 2000 Supreme (Raj) 662; Mustakim v. State of U.P. and another in Crl. Revision No. 3781/2014 vide order dtd.10.02.2015; Awdhesh Singh vs. State of UP & 2 Others in Cr.R. No. 83/2024 vide order dtd.02.08.2024 (at Allahabad); and Shri Arun Kumar vs. Smt. Sarla & Anr. in Crl. Rev. P. 312/2023 & CrL. M.A. 7773/2023 vide order dtd.03.12.2025 (at Delhi).
5. Heard learned counsel for the part
