Maintenance Rights of Unmarried Hindu Daughters: Supreme Court Judgment on Section 125 CrPC and Section 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 15 September 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 673
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a father be legally obligated to financially support his unmarried adult daughter, even if she is not disabled? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this complex issue, examining the interplay between criminal and personal laws concerning maintenance. The core question revolved around whether an unmarried Hindu daughter, who has attained majority, can claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), especially when she doesn’t suffer from any physical or mental disability. This judgment clarifies the scope of maintenance rights for unmarried Hindu daughters, and the circumstances under which they can claim support from their fathers.

Case Background

The case involves an appeal filed by Abhilasha, the daughter of Parkash and his wife. The dispute arose from a maintenance application filed under Section 125 of the CrPC by Abhilasha’s mother, on behalf of herself and her three children, including Abhilasha, against her husband, Parkash. The Judicial Magistrate initially granted maintenance to Abhilasha until she reached the age of majority. However, the Additional Sessions Judge modified this order, stating that Abhilasha was entitled to maintenance only until 26.04.2005, the date she attained majority. The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC, upholding the decision that maintenance was not applicable after attaining majority, unless there was a physical or mental abnormality.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate initially allowed the maintenance application for Abhilasha until she attained majority. The Additional Sessions Judge modified this, limiting maintenance till 26.04.2005, the date of her majority, stating that as per Section 125 Cr.P.C., a major child is only entitled to maintenance if they suffer from a physical or mental abnormality. The High Court upheld these orders, stating there was no illegality in the lower court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around two key legal provisions:

• Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section provides for maintenance of wives, children, and parents. Specifically, Section 125(1)(c) states that a major child (not being a married daughter) can claim maintenance if they are unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormality or injury.
  
  “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.– (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-
  (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself,”
• Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: This section deals with the maintenance of children and aged parents. Section 20(3) states that the obligation to maintain an unmarried daughter extends as long as she cannot maintain herself.
  
  “20. Maintenance of children and aged parents.— (1) Subject to the provisions of this section a Hindu is bound, during his or her lifetime, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children and his or her aged or infirm parents.
  (3) 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.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Abhilasha):

• The appellant contended that despite attaining majority on 26.04.2005, she is entitled to claim maintenance from her father because she is unmarried.
• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in dismissing her application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on the premise that she is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality.
• The appellant relied on Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956, asserting that a father’s obligation to maintain his unmarried daughter extends until she is married.
• The appellant cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata and Others, (2002) 5 SCC 422, in support of her submission.
• The appellant submitted that she is still unemployed and therefore, entitled to claim maintenance from her father.

Respondent’s Arguments (Parkash):

• The respondent contended that the lower courts rightly confined the appellant’s claim for maintenance till she attained majority on 26.04.2005.
• The respondent argued that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a daughter’s entitlement to claim maintenance after attaining majority is limited to cases where she is unable to maintain herself due to physical or mental abnormality or injury.
• The respondent pointed out that the Revisional Court had found that the appellant was not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or injury, and thus, not entitled to maintenance after attaining majority.
• The respondent submitted that the High Court rightly dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as there was no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate and the Revisional Court.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the appellant, who has attained majority and is still unmarried, is entitled to claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 Cr.P.C., even if she is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality/injury?
2. Whether the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate and the Revisional Court, limiting maintenance to the period until the appellant attained majority on 26.04.2005, should be set aside, with a direction to the respondent No.1 to continue to provide maintenance even after 26.04.2005 until the appellant remains unmarried?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several authorities to reach its decision:

Cases:

• Nanak Chand Vs. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal and Others, (1969) 3 SCC 802 – The Supreme Court held that Section 488 Cr.P.C. (now Section 125 Cr.P.C.) provides a summary remedy and is applicable to all persons regardless of their religion. It is not inconsistent with the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
• Mst. Zohara Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, (1981) 2 SCC 509 – The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 488 Cr.P.C. provides a summary remedy for awarding maintenance to neglected wives, irrespective of their religion.
• Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another, (1988) 1 SCC 530 – The Supreme Court held that personal law cannot be excluded when determining the marital status of a person claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
• Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (1996) 4 SCC 479 – The Supreme Court held that a stepmother can claim maintenance from her stepson under Section 125 Cr.P.C., provided she is a widow and unable to maintain herself.
• Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata and Others, (2002) 5 SCC 422 – The Supreme Court upheld a High Court order that considered Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 along with Section 125 Cr.P.C. to grant maintenance to an unmarried daughter until her marriage, although this case was distinguished in the present judgment.
• State of Haryana and Others Vs. Santra (Smt.), (2000) 5 SCC 182 – The Supreme Court noted that under Muslim Law, a father is obligated to maintain his daughters until they are married.
• Noor Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Quasim, (1997) 6 SCC 233 – The Supreme Court held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a beneficial legislation and its effect cannot be defeated except through clear provisions of a statute.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – The court analyzed the scope of this provision, particularly concerning the maintenance of major children.
• Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – The court examined this provision to understand the maintenance rights of unmarried daughters.
• Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – The court examined the predecessor to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Section 4 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – The court examined the overriding effect of the Act.
• Section 3(b) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – The court examined the definition of maintenance under the Act.

Use of Authorities

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions

Treatment of Authorities

✓ Nanak Chand Vs. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal and Others, (1969) 3 SCC 802: *Cited to emphasize that Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides a summary remedy applicable to all, irrespective of religion, and is not inconsistent with personal laws.*

✓ Mst. Zohara Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, (1981) 2 SCC 509: *Cited to reinforce the idea that Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides a summary remedy for maintenance.*

✓ Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another, (1988) 1 SCC 530: *Cited to highlight that personal law is relevant in determining marital status for maintenance claims.*

✓ Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (1996) 4 SCC 479: *Cited to show that ‘mother’ in Section 125 Cr.P.C. can include a stepmother.*

✓ Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata and Others, (2002) 5 SCC 422: *Distinguished; the court clarified that this case did not establish a precedent for claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. based on Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.*

✓ State of Haryana and Others Vs. Santra (Smt.), (2000) 5 SCC 182: *Cited to show that the obligation to maintain daughters until marriage exists in Muslim law.*

✓ Noor Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Quasim, (1997) 6 SCC 233: *Cited to emphasize the beneficial nature of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and its independent application.*

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court emphasized that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is designed for summary proceedings to provide immediate relief, while Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, offers a broader scope for maintenance claims. The Court noted that the appellant did not sufficiently demonstrate her inability to maintain herself, and the existence of a plot of land purchased in her name also influenced the decision.

The court’s reasoning was that while the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 recognizes a father’s obligation to maintain his unmarried daughter, this right is not automatically enforceable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court distinguished its previous judgment in Jagdish Jugtawat (supra), clarifying that it did not establish a precedent for claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by relying on Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Logical Reasoning

The court considered the argument that Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provides a right for an unmarried daughter to claim maintenance until she is married. However, the court clarified that this right is not directly enforceable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court held that the Magistrate, while exercising powers under Section 125 Cr.P.C., could not have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 20(3) of the Act, 1956. The court also noted that the appellant had not demonstrated her inability to maintain herself and had a plot of land in her name.

The court concluded that the appellant could seek maintenance under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, by proving her inability to maintain herself.

The court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring.

The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that while Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides a summary remedy for maintenance, it does not extend to unmarried daughters who have attained majority unless they suffer from a physical or mental abnormality. The court emphasized that the right to maintenance for such daughters exists under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, but this right must be enforced through a separate proceeding under that Act.

The decision has significant implications for future cases, clarifying the scope of maintenance rights for unmarried Hindu daughters and the appropriate legal avenues for claiming such rights. It also underscores the distinction between the summary nature of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the broader scope of maintenance rights under personal laws.

The court did not introduce any new doctrines but clarified the interplay between Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Key Takeaways

• An unmarried Hindu daughter cannot claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after attaining majority unless she suffers from a physical or mental abnormality.
• The right of an unmarried Hindu daughter to claim maintenance from her father exists under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, until she is married, provided she proves she cannot maintain herself.
• Claims for maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, must be pursued through appropriate civil proceedings, not under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
• Family Courts can exercise jurisdiction under both Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.