Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance for Wife and Major Daughter, Blending CrPC and HAMA Provisions

New Delhi, December 3, 2025 – In a significant ruling on family maintenance laws, the Delhi High Court has affirmed a Family Court's order directing a husband to pay ₹45,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife and major unmarried daughter. The decision emphasizes the Family Court's authority to invoke provisions from both the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) to prevent procedural delays and multiplicity of proceedings.

Case Background and Parties Involved

The petition, titled Shri Arun Kumar v. Smt. Sarla & Anr. (CRL.REV.P. 312/2023), was heard by Justice Amit Mahajan. The marriage between petitioner Arun Kumar and respondent Smt. Sarla was solemnized on March 4, 2001, and the couple has two children, both in the wife's custody. Sarla and their major daughter (Respondent No. 2) filed a joint application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court at Karkardooma Courts, seeking maintenance from Arun Kumar.

On January 13, 2023, the Family Court awarded interim maintenance of ₹45,000 monthly to both respondents—until Sarla remarries or becomes gainfully employed, and until the daughter marries or secures employment. Arun Kumar challenged this order, arguing it exceeded the Family Court's jurisdiction under Section 125 CrPC for a major daughter.

Key Arguments from Both Sides

Arun Kumar's counsel, Ms. Ragini Tripathi and Mr. B.K. Tripathi, contended that the major daughter does not qualify for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, as she lacks any physical or mental disability preventing self-maintenance. They criticized the Family Court's reliance on the Supreme Court's Abhilasha v. Parkash (2021) 13 SCC 99, noting the daughter's majority at filing. Additionally, they highlighted the petitioner's expenses—₹13,000 on EMIs, ₹18,000 on loans, ₹17,142 on rent, and ₹20,000 on medical costs—leaving him with only ₹15,000 monthly after a ₹1,00,000 income.

Respondents' counsel, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, defended the order as well-reasoned, arguing the daughter's entitlement under Section 20 HAMA as an unmarried major unable to maintain herself. He stressed that forcing a separate HAMA petition would cause undue hardship, especially as the daughter is pursuing college studies, and invoked Abhilasha to justify the combined application of laws.

Legal Precedents and Principles Applied

The High Court delved into Section 125 CrPC, which limits maintenance for major children to cases of physical/mental incapacity. However, it affirmed the daughter's rights under Section 20 HAMA, which obligates a Hindu father to maintain an unmarried major daughter unable to support herself.

Justice Mahajan relied heavily on Abhilasha v. Parkash , quoting: “The Family Court can exercise jurisdiction under both the Acts and in an appropriate case can grant maintenance to unmarried daughter even though she has become major enforcing her right under Section 20 of the 1956 Act so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.” The Court distinguished this from pure Section 125 CrPC applications, noting no prejudice to the petitioner, as he would owe the same duty under HAMA.

The ruling also addressed quantum calculation, limiting deductions to income tax, compulsory contributions, and ₹10,000 for the petitioner's dependent mother (from a net ₹90,000 income after her dependency). Expenses like rent, EMIs, and medical costs were deemed non-deductible for maintenance purposes, with only ₹5,000 allowed for GPF.

A pivotal excerpt from the judgment underscores the rationale: “Rejecting the application on such a technicality... would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings and amount to abuse of process of Court.”

Court's Final Decision and Implications

Dismissing the petition, Justice Mahajan found no grounds to interfere, labeling the order interim and subject to final evidence. The decision reinforces Family Courts' flexibility in matrimonial disputes, promoting efficiency by allowing concurrent jurisdiction under CrPC and HAMA.

This ruling could streamline maintenance claims for major unmarried children in Hindu families, reducing litigation burdens. It signals to legal practitioners that technical disqualifications under Section 125 CrPC need not bar relief if alternative statutes apply, potentially influencing similar cases nationwide.

For legal professionals, the judgment highlights the evolving interplay between criminal and personal laws in family matters, ensuring equitable support without procedural hurdles.