Case at a Glance
A Family Court in Nagpur ordered a husband earning about Rs. 71,000 a month to pay Rs. 7,000 per month each to his two children, while refusing maintenance to his wife, a teacher earning about Rs. 40,000. The husband argued in revision that his children had become majors and that an unmarried adult daughter must sue under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), not Section 125 CrPC. The Bombay High Court rejected the argument, holding that the availability of a HAMA remedy is no bar where the father has not shown that his daughter can maintain herself. The revision was dismissed as devoid of merit.
The wife and two children filed Petition No. E-130 of 2014 before the Family Court, Nagpur. By a common judgment of 7 December 2019, the Family Court awarded Rs. 7,000 a month to each child from the date of judgment but declined maintenance to the wife, who works as a teacher and earns about Rs. 40,000 a month. The husband earns about Rs. 71,000 a month.
The husband filed a criminal revision. He contended that the children had since attained majority (the daughter was 23 when the revision was filed), that he also had to support his elderly parents, and that, following Abhilasha v. Parkash, (2020) 09 SC CK 0021, (2021) 13 SCC 99, an unmarried major daughter’s claim lies only under Section 20(3) of HAMA, since Section 125 CrPC covers minor children. The family relied on Murlidhar Krushnarao Virulkar v. Ku. Neha, (2024) 12 BOM CK 0044, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3706, to argue that forcing a daughter to start fresh HAMA proceedings years later would be harsh.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a father avoid a Section 125 CrPC maintenance order for his unmarried adult daughter by arguing that her proper remedy lies under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act?
Why the HAMA argument failed
Justice Mehroz K. Pathan left the wife’s denial of maintenance undisturbed, and turned to the children. On the son, the Court noted that he was a minor on the date of the impugned judgment, so the order could not be faulted merely because he later turned 18. Any claim that his majority changes his entitlement can be raised under Section 127 CrPC before the appropriate forum.
On the daughter, the Court held that an alternate remedy under HAMA is no bar, particularly when the husband had not shown that she is able to maintain herself. It relied on Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata, (2002) 04 SC CK 0154, (2002) 5 SCC 422, where the Supreme Court upheld Section 125 maintenance to a daughter beyond majority, read with Section 20(3) of HAMA, to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings. The Court also referred to the Delhi High Court’s decision in Urvashi Aggarwal v. Inderpaul Aggarwal, (2021) 06 DEL CK 0079 (Crl. Rev. P. 549 of 2018) on a father’s continuing duty towards a major child who is still studying. The grant of Rs. 7,000 per month was held not to be erroneous.
What the Court Actually Held
- The availability of a remedy under Section 20(3) HAMA does not bar an unmarried major daughter’s maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, especially where the father has not shown she can maintain herself.
- Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata permits maintenance beyond majority to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
- An order validly made when a child was a minor is not rendered wrong because the child later becomes a major; changed circumstances can be raised under Section 127 CrPC.
- The Family Court’s award of Rs. 7,000 per month to each child was upheld and the husband’s revision was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It addresses a frequent defence in maintenance cases, that adult daughters must start separate HAMA proceedings.
- It places the burden on the father to show that the daughter can maintain herself before such an objection can succeed.
- It reminds litigants that Section 127 CrPC, not a revision, is the route to seek alteration due to changed circumstances.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Wives and Children
- A daughter’s claim need not be split into a separate HAMA suit if it is already before the Family Court under Section 125.
- Place on record the daughter’s studies and lack of independent income.
- If the son has turned major, be ready to meet a Section 127 application on facts.
For Counsel
- Cite Jagdish Jugtawat against reliance on Abhilasha v. Parkash.
- A father raising the HAMA objection should lead evidence on the daughter’s capacity to maintain herself.
- Changed circumstances belong in Section 127 proceedings, not in a revision.
Key Takeaways
- HAMA remedy is not a bar to Section 125 maintenance for an unmarried major daughter.
- The father must show the daughter can maintain herself.
- Majority attained after the order does not make the order erroneous.
- Rs. 7,000 a month per child, against a Rs. 71,000 income, was upheld.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an unmarried adult daughter get maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?
In this case the Bombay High Court upheld such maintenance, holding that the alternative remedy under Section 20(3) of HAMA is no bar, relying on Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata, particularly when the father had not shown she could maintain herself.
Did the wife get maintenance?
No. The Family Court refused maintenance to the wife, who earns about Rs. 40,000 a month as a teacher, and the High Court did not disturb that finding.
What if a child turns 18 after the order?
The Court said the order cannot be faulted for that reason. Any claim that majority changes entitlement can be raised under Section 127 CrPC before the appropriate forum.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court has refused to let a technical objection about the correct statute defeat a daughter’s maintenance. Where the claim is already before the Family Court and the father cannot show that his daughter is self-sufficient, he cannot send her back to start a new HAMA case.
Practical takeaway: A father relying on Abhilasha v. Parkash must also prove that the adult daughter can maintain herself; otherwise Jagdish Jugtawat allows the Section 125 order to stand.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com