Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BENCH AT GOA
M. S. JAWALKAR, J
SMITA MAHENDRA HALARNKAR & ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
MAHENDRA TUKARAM HALARNKAR – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 5 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.M. Singbal
For the Respondents: Terrence Sequeira
Major daughters are entitled to maintenance under personal law beyond the age of majority, as per the courts interpreting local family laws alongside Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance - Claim for maintenance by major daughter - Court held that major daughter is entitled to claim maintenance under the applicable Personal Law, even after attaining majority, as the law in Goa recognizes continuous obligation until marriage. The earlier order granting interim maintenance of ₹10,000/- was undermined by the Sessions Judge without addressing the relevant provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code. (Paras 1, 6, 23, 25)
(B) Maintenance - Judicial Magistrate's jurisdiction - The Magistrate has jurisdiction to entertain maintenance applications under both Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and Portuguese Civil Code, ensuring legal entitlement is harmonized with local family laws. (Paras 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
The revision application is filed by a daughter against her father regarding the maintenance order. The daughter claimed maintenance for educational expenses, stating that she has been living with her mother and that the father ceased payments upon her attaining majority, while she is still pursuing education.
Findings of Court:
The Court set aside the learned Additional Sessions Judge's order on the grounds that it disregarded the applicability of the Portuguese Civil Code regarding maintenance obligations even after majority and ordered the matter to be reconsidered regarding quantum of maintenance.
Issues: The Court addressed whether the Magistrate was correct to award maintenance under Section 125, considering the continuous obligations imposed by personal law on parents towards their children beyond the age of majority.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court established that the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code must be integrated with Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to ensure the maintenance rights of daughters beyond the age of majority until they marry.
Result: Criminal Revision Application allowed, earlier order quashed, and the case restored for fresh consideration on merits without determining compensation amount.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal framework for maintenance claims post-majority. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding ongoing entitlement to maintenance after majority. (Para 6) |
| 3. rights of daughters under personal law. (Para 7 , 10) |
| 4. counsel's submissions on personal law and education. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 5. statutory interpretations align with personal law. (Para 12 , 14 , 19) |
| 6. jurisdiction to hear maintenance cases under portuguese civil code. (Para 18) |
| 7. order allows case to be reconsidered without prior limitations. (Para 22) |
| 8. court's final decision on the revision application. (Para 24 , 25) |
ORDER:
The present Criminal Revision Application is filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Cr.P.C ., for short) against the impugned order dated 04.05.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Criminal Revision Application No. 13 of 2021. By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 14.01.2020, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bicholim in Case No. MTA/1/2019/A, granting interim maintenance of ₹10,000/- to respondent no. 1 (applicant no. 1 herein) towards educational expenses.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Revision Application may be stated thus:-
The applicant no. 1 is the daughter of applicant no. 2 and the respondent. It is stated by applicant no. 1 that since her birth, she is staying with her mother i.e. applicant no. 2. It is stated that through applicant no. 2, applicant no. 1 had filed Maintenance Case No. 04/1999 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji against the respondent, which was allowed and the respondent was directed to pay to the applicant no. 1 through applicant no. 2, an amount of Rs.500/- per month till she attained the age of majority. It is stated that the respondent has stopped paying the said maintenance of Rs.500/- from March 2017 on the ground that the applicant no. 1 has attained majority. It is stated that the applicant no. 1 has attained majority in May 2017 and presently, she is 22 years of age.
3. It is further stated that the applicant no. 1 since the academic year 2018 till date is studying in the Institute College of Non Conventional and Vocational Courses for women at Kolhapur and as such, she is residing in the hostel/rented premises at Kolhapur for which, the monthly expenditure is about ₹7,000/- per month.
4. It is stated that all these years, the entire expenses of education of applicant no. 1 was borne by applicant no. 2. It is stated that applicant no. 1 is legally entitled for maintenance as she has no other source of income. Therefore, the applicant no. 1 preferred an application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C along with Maintenance Application No. 1/2019/A for interim maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Bicholim, which was allowed by order dated 14.01.2020, whereby the respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the applicant no. 1 towards her educational expenses.
5. The respondent challenged the said order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bicholim before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mapusa in Criminal Revision Application No. 13/2021. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the applicant no. 1 is a major daughter of the respondent and there is nothing placed on record to show that the applicant no. 1 is having mental or physical abnormality or injury so as to unable to maintain herself and set aside the order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 04.05.2021. Aggrieved by the said order dated 04.05.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mapusa, the applicants are before this Court in the present Criminal Revision Application.
6. Heard Mr. Singbal, the learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. Sequeira, the learned Counsel for the respondent at length.
7. It is submitted by M
