The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has clarified that unmarried, able-bodied adult daughters who do not suffer from any physical or mental disability are not eligible to claim maintenance from their father under Section 488 of the erstwhile J&K Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
This significant observation came from Justice Rahul Bharti, who held that the earlier maintenance orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Anantnag, and upheld by the Principal Sessions Judge, were erroneous and unsustainable in law.
"Both the magistrate and the revisional Sessions Court erred by passing the maintenance order in favour of the respondent-daughters, despite the bar under Section 488 CrPC. The daughters were not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality that prevented them from maintaining themselves."
Background of the Case
The case arose from a maintenance petition filed by the two major daughters of the petitioner under Section 488 of the J&K CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Anantnag. The daughters sought a monthly maintenance allowance from their father, claiming financial need.
Read also: Delhi High Court: Examination-In-Chief Under Domestic Violence Act Can Be Filed Through Affidavit
Interestingly, all three children of the petitioner were major at the time of filing the application.
In response, the father also filed his own petition seeking maintenance from his son under the same provision, claiming financial dependence on him for daily sustenance. His plea was accepted, and the Court granted him monthly maintenance of ₹2,000/- from his son, recognizing that he was unable to support himself.
After nearly five years of pendency, on April 9, 2019, the Judicial Magistrate passed an order in favour of the daughters. It directed the petitioner (father) to pay monthly maintenance of ₹1,200/- each to the two unmarried daughters, effective from July 10, 2014.
Aggrieved by this order, the father filed a criminal revision before the Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag. However, the revisional court dismissed the challenge and upheld the maintenance order.
The petitioner, dissatisfied with the consistent ruling against him, approached the Jammu and Kashmir High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, invoking the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
He contested the order on the grounds that:
- He was already financially dependent on his son.
- He had been recognized by the same court as entitled to receive maintenance.
- The two daughters were major and healthy, with no physical or mental disability, and hence, not legally eligible to claim maintenance under the relevant provision.
Section 488 of the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989, which was applicable at the time the original order was passed, explicitly provided that:
“If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, such child can claim maintenance only if they are, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, unable to maintain themselves.”
The High Court held that although unmarried major daughters could in theory apply for maintenance, they must show inability to maintain themselves due to a physical or mental condition.
“The two daughters, being adult and physically able-bodied with no mental or physical ailment, were not entitled to claim maintenance. Both the earlier orders were illegal and thus set aside.”
The High Court found that the trial magistrate and the Sessions Court had wrongly imposed a financial burden on the father. It observed that the legal criteria under Section 488 were not fulfilled, making the maintenance order against the petitioner legally unsound.
APPEARANCE:
G.N. Sofi, Advocate for Petitioners
None for Respondents
Case-Title: ABDUL RAHEEM BHAT (Senior Citizen) vs BEAUTY JAN AND ORS. 2025
