Abhilasha vs Parkash & Ors.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.125 – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Distinction between – Held: The purpose and object of s.125 is to provide immediate relief to applicant in a summary proceedings, whereas right under s.20 read with s.3(b) of Act, 1956 contains larger right, which needs determination by a Civil Court, hence for the larger claims as enshrined under s.20, the proceedings need to be initiated under s.20 of the Act and the legislature never contemplated to burden the Magistrate while exercising jurisdiction under s.125 Cr.P.C. to determine the claims contemplated by Act, 1956. Family Courts Act, 1984: Jurisdiction of Family Court – Family Courts shall have the jurisdiction only with respect to city or town whose population exceeds one million and where there is no Family Courts, proceedings under s.125 Cr.P.C. shall have to be before the Magistrate of the First Class – In an area where the Family Court is not established, a suit or proceedings for maintenance including the proceedings under s.20 of the Act, 1956 shall only be before the District Court or any subordinate Civil Court – There may be a case where the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide a case under s.125 Cr.P.C. as well as the suit under s.20 of Act, 1956, in such eventuality, 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 s.20 of Act, 1956 so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – s.20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. A bare perusal of Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. as well as Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 indicates that Section 125 Cr.P.C. limits the claim of maintenance of a child until he or she attains majority. By virtue of Section 125(1)(c), an unmarried daughter even though she has attained majority is entitled for maintenance, where such unmarried daughter is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury is unable to maintain itself. In the present case, the Revisional Court returned a finding that appellant is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or injury due to which she is unable to maintain herself. The above findings are not even questioned before this court. What is contended that even if she is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or injury, by virtue of Section 20 of Act, 1956, she is entitled to claim maintenance till she is unmarried. [Para 12][253-B-E]

2. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 488 was the provision governing the maintenance of wife or legitimate or illegitimate child of any person. Section 488 sought to inhibit negligence of woman and children with intent to serve a social purpose. The provision provided for summary proceeding to enable a deserted wife or helpless child, legitimate or illegitimate, to get urgent relief. The laws are nothing but collective consciousness of community. It is in the interest of the community and social order that woman and child who are neglected be maintained and should be provided a forum to obtain urgent relief to enable them to sustain. [Paras 13, 14][253-F; 254-A-B] Mulla – Hindu Law 22nd Edition – referred to.

3. Section 20(3) of the Act, 1956 is nothing but recognition of principles of Hindu Law regarding maintenance of children and aged parents. Section 20(3) now makes it statutory obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property. The right of unmarried daughter under Section 20 to claim maintenance from her father when she is unable to maintain herself is absolute and the right given to unmarried daughter under Section 20 is right granted under personal law, which can very well be enforced by her against her father. [Paras 27, 31] [262-E-F; 264-C-D]

Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim (1997) 6 SCC

233 : [1997] 6 SCC 182 – relied on.

4. After enactment of Family Courts Act, 1984, a Family Court shall also have the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents. Family Courts shall have the jurisdiction only with respect to city or town whose population exceeds one million, where there is no Family Courts, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall have to be before the Magistrate of the First Class. In an area where the Family Court is not established, a suit or proceedings for maintenance including the proceedings under Section 20 of the Act, 1956 shall only be before the District Court or any subordinate Civil Court. There may be a case where the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as the suit under Section 20 of Act, 1956, in such eventuality, 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 Act, 1956 so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. However the Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot pass such order. [Paras 32, 33][264-E-H; 265-A]

Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata and Others (2002) 5 SCC 422 – relied on.

5. The maintenance as contemplated under Act, 1956 is a larger concept as compared to concept of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Section 3(b) while defining maintenance gives an inclusive definition including marriage expenses. The purpose and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide immediate relief to applicant in a summary proceedings, whereas right under Section 20 read with Section 3(b) of Act, 1956 contains larger right, which needs determination by a Civil Court, hence for the larger claims as enshrined under Section 20, the proceedings need to be initiated under Section 20 of the Act and the legislature never contemplated to burden the Magistrate while exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to determine the claims contemplated by Act, 1956. [Paras 35, 36][265-D, G]

6. An unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married relying on Section 20(3) of the Act, 1956, provided she pleads and proves that she is unable to maintain herself, for enforcement of which right her application/suit has to be under Section 20 of Act, 1956. In facts of the present case the ends of justice be served by giving liberty to the appellant to take recourse to Section 20(3) of the Act, 1956, if so advised, for claiming any maintenance against her father. [Paras 38, 39] [267-B, C-D]

Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal and Others (1969) 3 SCC 802 : [1970] 1 SCR 565; Ram Singh v. State AIR 1963 All 355; Nalini Ranjan v. Kiran Rani AIR 1965 Pat. 442; Mahabir Agarwalla v. Gita Roy [1962] 2 Cr. L.J.528; Mst. Zohara Khatoon v. Mohd. Ibrahim (1981) 2 SCC 509 : [1981] 2 SCR 910;

Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another (1988) 1 SCC 530; Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat and Another (1996) 4 SCC 479 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 45; State of Haryana and Others v. Santra (Smt.) (2000) 5 SCC 182 : [2000] 3 SCR 195– referred to.