What the Supreme Court says on the mismatch between Section 20 Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 & Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for maintenance of unmarried major daughters?
The Supreme Court in the case of (Abhilasha v. Prakash) has discussed about the conflict between section 20(3) of the Hindu Marriage & Adoptions Act and Section 125 Code of Civil Procedure, 1973. The Apex Court held that an unmarried daughter who is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality and has attained majority is not entitled to claim maintenance from her father u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Marriage & Adoptions Act, 1956, the right given to a daughter is thorough and can be exercised by the unmarried daughter against her father. According to this section a Hindu Man is obligated to maintain a daughter who is unmarried & is unable to maintain herself out of her earnings or other property.
Whereas, Section 125 Code of Civil Procedure,1973 states that the claim for maintenance by a daughter, who has attained majority, is limited only to those cases wherein by reason of mental or physical abnormality or injury, the daughter is unable to maintain herself.
Facts of the case:-
A woman filed an application against her husband, claiming maintenance for herself and three children under Section 125 CrPc. The application filed by her, and two children were dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate. Out of the three children one daughter was a minor who filed another application of maintenance under Section 125 Crpc and the judicial magistrate granted the maintenance to the minor daughter till she attains majority. The application was dismissed by the Additional Session Judge when the girl attained majority. Aggrieved by the judgment of Session Judge, Abhilasha the daughter of Mr. Prakash went for an appeal for the criminal revision in High Court under Section 498 Cr.P.C . The High Court held that children are entitled to maintenance in case only if they are minor and after attaining majority, the maintenance can be done only because of any physical or mental abnormality or any injury due to which the children are unable to maintain themselves. Again, aggrieved from the order passed by the High Court an appeal was filed by the appellant ‘Abhilasha’ in the Supreme Court in this case ‘Abhilasha v.Prakash & Ors’. Abhilasha’s counsel contended that though she had attained majority since she is unmarried, she has all rights to claim maintenance from her father under Section 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Analysis by the Supreme Court
The apex court held that the definition of maintenance as given under under Section 20 is a wide concept whereas maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C is a narrow concept because it just provides immediate relief to the applicant and it limits the claim of maintenance of a child until he or she attains majority. The Court thus stated that an unmarried major daughter, who doesn’t have the capacity to maintain herself can claim maintenance from her father, but in order for the enforcement of this right, the application or suit has to be under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 and not under the Section 125 of Crpc and that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide immediate relief to the applicant ,whereas right under Section 20(3) of HAMA, 1956 contains larger right. The court also held that the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Additional Sessions have made no impairment in deciding the case as it was not in its jurisdiction.