The Bombay High Court has held that an unmarried adult daughter cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) merely because she has an alternative remedy under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). Justice Mehroz K. Pathan delivered the ruling while dismissing a father's criminal revision challenging a Family Court order granting ₹7,000 per month each to his daughter and son.
Background
In Anand Harishchandra Chouhan v. Smt. Shaila, the father challenged a December 7, 2019, judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur, awarding monthly maintenance to his two children.
The father argued that his daughter had attained majority and should pursue maintenance under Section 20(3) of HAMA, which recognises an unmarried Hindu daughter's right to maintenance from her father if she cannot maintain herself. He also contended that his son had attained majority during the revision proceedings and was no longer entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Opposing the revision, the children's counsel argued that the existing maintenance order should not be disturbed after years of proceedings. The daughter should not be compelled to initiate fresh litigation merely because another legal remedy was available.
The High Court examined the Family Court's findings, including the parties' respective incomes. The wife was earning approximately ₹40,000 per month as a teacher, while the husband earned around ₹71,000. The Family Court had declined maintenance to the wife but granted ₹7,000 per month to each child.
Addressing the daughter's claim, the Court observed:
“However, mere availability of such an alternate remedy cannot be a bar to claim a maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., particularly, when the applicant has failed to show that the non-applicant no.2/daughter is able to maintain herself.”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata, which recognised that maintenance awarded to an unmarried daughter could be sustained by considering Section 125 CrPC alongside Section 20(3) of HAMA.
Regarding the son, the Court noted that he was a minor when the Family Court passed its order. His subsequent attainment of majority during the revision proceedings did not, by itself, invalidate that order. The father could raise the issue before the appropriate forum through an application under Section 127 CrPC.
The High Court found no error in the Family Court's decision to grant maintenance to both children. It held that the father's revision lacked merit and dismissed the criminal revision, leaving the maintenance award of ₹7,000 per month for each child undisturbed.
