ABHILASHA VS PRAKSH &OTHERS (2020) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 615 of 2020 

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case discussed above, Abhilasha Vs Prakash & others. Earlier, Mother of the appellant of this present case filed an application against her spouse Prakash, respondent in present case under section 125 CrPc dated on 17 October,2002. First class judicial magistrate of first class, dated 16 February, 2011 dismissed the maintenance of appellant (Abhilasha) afterward attaining majority but granted the maintenance until she got her majority under section 125 of CrPc.

Present case is dealing with contradiction between CrPc and Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act,1956. As section 125 of CrPc denotes order for maintenance for wives, children, and parents.

In this case maintenance was allowed to the appellant till 26.04.2005, until he gained majority. But the contradictory rule was section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956. Section 20 denotes the Maintenance of children and aged parents. Section 20 (3) the  Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956 denotes that – The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property. The appellant filed a case in the high court against the decision of the additional session judge which was rejected by the honorable high court on 16 February,2018 and then she filed a case in the Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES

• Whether the Appellant who has been attained majority and is still unmarried is entitled to entertain the maintenance from her father (prakash), the respondent  under the provision of section 125 of the CrPc, irrespective of the fact that he is major and not having any mental disability or physical disability.
• A clear contradiction between section 125 of the CrPc and section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956.whether the decisions of the learned revisional court as well as learned Judicial Magistrate limiting appellant right to claim the maintenance until she attains the majority dated i.e 26.04.2005 is justified to get aside which makes the respondent liable to pay the maintenance to her daughter Abhilasha although she attains majority and still unmarried or even after 26.04.2005 if she is unmarried.

ARGUMENTS

Appellant Arguments: The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has the right to claim the maintenance for respondent , she is unable to maintain herself. The learned counsel relied on the section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956 and supported his arguments from the case Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat vs Smt. Manjulata And Ors. on 25 October, 2000 which states that High Court although accepted the legal position that under Section 125 Cr.P.C, A minor daughter is entitled to maintenance from her parents only till she attains majority but refused to meddling with  the Family Court decision passed, from taking the cue from Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. He also argued that it was the High Court error to dismiss the application filed by the Applicant to claim the maintenance form the Respondent on the basis that she was not suffering from any physical or mental abnormalities or disabilities as being a major. At last the learned counsel for the appellant argued that as the appellant is unemployed and not able to main herself should get maintenance from her father.

Respondent Argument: The learned counsel for the respondent argued that section 125 of CrPc clearly states that a daughter who is a major is entitled to claim the maintenance only when she is suffering from mental or physical disability or abnormality. Further to support his argument the learned counsel showcased the decision of revisional courts and the Judicial Magistrate decision that the appellant is not suffering from any mental or physical abnormalities or disabilities and hence not stands under the criteria to claim the maintenance from his client.

Related provisions –

• Section 125 of the CrPc.

Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

• Section 20 of the Hindu adoption and maintenance act,1956.

Maintenance of children and aged parents.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court of India stated that a Hindu is legally obliged to support parents, wife, small childrens and unmarried daughters and here the appellant, a hindu daughter, will be entitled for the maintenance form the respondent as per the section 20 of hindu adoption and maintenance act,1956 but for that she should qualify the parameters that she can’t take care of herself. 

In this case SC reckoned on the section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance act,1956 and stated that a Hindu is responsible to give maintenance to her unmarried daughter under the scope of section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance act,1956 if unmarried daughter is unable to maintain herself. therefore the case is not maintainable and hence appeal is dismissed.

REFERENCE

www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-10542-case-analysis-abhilasha-v-s-prakash-.html

Abhilasha vs Parkash on 15 September, 2020 (indiankanoon.org)

This article is written by Vikrant Rawat of Lloyd Law College at Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin