Case Analysis: Abhilasha v. Prakash and Ors.

In the Supreme Court of India

Facts of the case:

The mother of the appellant filed an application for maintenance for her and her 3 children against her husband (respondent no.1) under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appeal for maintenance to appellants no. 1, 2, and 3 was subsequently dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate allowing the application for maintenance for appellant no. 4 until she attains a majority.

All three applicants, aggrieved by the decision dated 16.02.2011 filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Court which was rejected by the additional sessions judge citing that only major children with a physical and mental abnormality who are unable to maintain themselves are entitled to maintenance under Section 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a modification that the maintenance be granted to the minor daughter until she attains majority vis-à-vis 26-04-2005.

The Additional Sessions Judge held that as per provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C., the children, who had attained majority are entitled to maintenance only if they are suffering from any physical or mental abnormality because of which they are unable to maintain themselves. The court also noted that the revisionist No.4 (i.e. appellant) is not suffering from any physical, or mental abnormality or injury, therefore, she is entitled to maintenance only till 26.04.2005 i.e., till she attains majority.

The appellants then challenged the order of the sessions Judge and an application was filed before the Punjab and Haryana under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court reaffirmed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. Later the appellants challenged the order of the High Court in the Supreme Court.

Provisions involved:

There are 3 main provisions involved in the present case:

1. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
2. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
3. Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

Issued involved:

There were two main issues before the Hon’ble Court for consideration under this case:

1. Whether the appellant, who although had attained majority and is still unmarried is entitled to claim maintenance from her father in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. although she is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality/injury?
2. Whether the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate as well as the learned Revisional Court limiting the claim of the appellant to claim maintenance till she attains a majority on 26.04.2005 deserves to be set aside with direction to respondent No.1 to continue to give maintenance even after 26.04.2005 till the appellant remains unmarried?

Arguments from the Petitioner’s side:

The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner argued that appellant No.4 (Abhilasha) who has though attained majority and is unmarried is entitled to maintenance and the High Court had committed an error in denying her maintenance. The learned counsel relied on Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956 which reads firmly that an unmarried major daughter is entitled to maintenance from her father until she gets married.

She further contended that an unmarried major daughter cannot be denied maintenance only on the ground that she is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality.

Arguments from the Respondent’s side:

The learned counsel representing the respondent opposed the arguments put forth by the senior counsel for the appellant. The counsel contended that it is asserted that the lower courts have appropriately restricted the appellant’s claim for maintenance until she reached the age of majority on 26.04.2005. The contention was based on Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which limits the entitlement to claim maintenance by a daughter who has attained majority to cases where the daughter is unable to maintain herself due to any physical or mental abnormality or injury.

It was further argued that the High Court had appropriately dismissed the application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the appellant. The dismissal was justified by the reason that the appellant failed to establish any grounds necessitating interference with the orders issued by the Judicial Magistrate and the Revisional Court.

Judgement Pronounced:

The Supreme Court held that a Hindu daughter who is unmarried is entitled to claim maintenance from her father until the time she gets married according to Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 but this right is not absolute. In order to get the maintenance, it must be proved by the claimant that she does have sufficient means to maintain herself and is unable to do so.

Furthermore, an application under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act must be filed in order to enforce her rights.

However, in the present case, since the application was filed under Section 125 of the CrPC and not under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act the claim was not maintainable. Further, the court clarified that under Section 125 CrPC only those children who are major are entitled to maintenance who cannot maintain themselves due to any physical or mental abnormality or injury and this was not the case with the appellant so she is not entitled to maintenance.

The Supreme Court also discussed a brief distinction between the two sections vis-a-vis Section 20 of Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Section 125 of the CrPC.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is moral as well as legal obligation of a father to maintain his children, whether legitimate or illegitimate. The objective of Section 125 CrPC is to provide adequate means of living to several persons including wives, children, and aged parents. This section has a uniform application and applies to everyone regardless of religion. On the other hand, Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is applicable only on Hindus.

By Vaidehi Sharma, a student of BALLB at Mohanlal Sukhadia University