ABHILASHA V/S PRAKASH AND ORS. ON 15 September 2020
| Case Number | Crl.A.No.615 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8260/2018) |
| Case Type | Criminal Appeal |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Appellant | Abhilasha |
| Respondents | Prakash &Ors |
| Bench/Coram | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok, Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Mr. Justice M.R. Shah |
| Judgement Date | 15 September 2020 |
| Referred | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 20 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
This appeal has been filed by appellant impugning order dated 16.08.2018 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which dismisses the application of appellant under Section 482 CrPC made in relation for setting aside order of Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 16.02.2011 as well as order of Additional Sessions Judge dated 17.02.2014.
In this case, initially the mother of appellant (respondent no.2) filed an application on 17.10.2002 under Section 125 CrPC against her husband (respondent no.1) claiming maintenance for herself and their three children but the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class through order dated 16.02.2011 dismissed it, however allowing the grant of maintenance only for present appellant (youngest daughter of applicant) till she attains majority.
Then all the four applicants file for criminal revision before Sessions Court whereby the Learned Additional Sessions Judge through judgement order dated 17.02.2014, dismissing the revision petition upheld the decision of Lower Court and allowed for maintenance to present appellant till 26.04.2005 when she attains majority and not after that because Section 125 CrPC provides that only major children who by reason of physical, mental abnormality or injury are allowed for maintenance even after attaining majority as they cannot maintain themselves.
An appeal was filed in High Court under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court has upheld the decision of both courts and dismissed the appeal through order dated 16.02.2018. Then, challenging judgment of the High Court an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
- Can an unmarried major daughter claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 CrPC although when not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality/ injury?
- Scope of maintenance to children under Section 125 CrPC and Section 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
ANALAYSIS
The Learned senior counsel appearing for present appellant submitted that High Court has committed error in confining the claim of maintenance of appellant till attains majority on 26.04.2005. And argued that there is obligation on the father (respondent no.1) to maintain his major unmarried daughter till she is married and that, it is irrespective if she is suffering from any physical or mental abnormality/ injury or not as per proviso under Section 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
However, the Learned counsel for respondent refuted the submission of Learned counsel for appellant and contended that the Courts have rightly decided the matter because the date of birth of the appellant was 26.04.1987, she was minor at the time when the application was filed and that Learned Judicial Magistrate has allowed the application of appellant for maintenance till she attains majority and later the Learned Revisional Court has also affirmed the judgment with modification that appellant was entitled to receive maintenance till 26.04.2005 instead of 07.02.2005, which is date when she attains majority as per Section 125 CrPC.
From the above provisions, it is clearly understood that Section 125 CrPC 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/ injury is unable to maintain itself.
Whereas under Section 20 of HAMA, 1956 a Hindu daughter is entitled to claim maintenance till she is unmarried even if she is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality/ injury.
Now the Hon’ble Court is left with a question and need, to examine nature and scope of two remedies provided under Section 125 CrPC and Section 20 HAMA, 1956.
The Learned counsel for appellant relies on judgement of case Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata and others (2002) 5 SCC 422 in support of submission, where the High Court although accepted the legal position that under Section 125 CrPC a minor child is entitled to maintenance from parents only till child attains majority, but however declined to interfere with the orders passed by the Family Court taking the cue from Section 20(3) of the HAMA, 1956.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation with judgement of Jagdish Jugtawat (supra) held that although order was passed by the Family Court by granting maintenance which was based on combined reading of Section 125 CrPC and Section 20 HAMA, 1956 the High Court was persuaded to maintain the order of the Family Court with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
According to Family Courts Act, 1984 a Family Court have same jurisdiction as exercisable y a Magistrate First Class so as far as the case of Jagdish Jugtawat (supra) is concerned the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide a case under Section 12CrPC as well as the suit under Section 20 HAMA, 1956, in such eventuality, Family Court can exercise jurisdiction under both the Acts However the Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 125 CrPC cannot pass such order.
So, in the present case, the application was filed under Section 125 CrPC the Magistrate while deciding proceedings under Section 125 CrPC could not have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 20(3) HAMA, 1956 and such submission of the appellant cannot be accepted.
Finally, the Apex Court dismissing the appeal has said that prayer of appellant was not maintainable under Section 125 CrPC but held that an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married relying on Section 20(3) HAMA, 1956 provided she proves that she is unable to maintain herself and therefore directed the appellant to take recourse for claim of maintenance through a new suit under Section 20 HAMA, 1956.
CONCLUSION
The present case helped to understand the scope and extent of the Right to claim maintenance guaranteed under Section 125 CrPC, which is used as bulwark for immediate relief in many maintenance cases in India. Also, through this case we understand how Personal Laws have come to the aid of the appellant which otherwise was not possible under Section 125 CrPC and shown the importance of various Personal Laws.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Abraham Dany Diana first year student of Dr. B. R Ambedkar Law College, Andhra University, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments