FACTS
An application under Section 125 CrPC was filed by the appellant’s mother on October 17, 2002, on behalf of herself and her three children against her husband, the respondent. She had two sons and a daughter. Whereafter, the application of two children was rejected while that of the third child Abhilasha’s appeal for maintenance was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate Rewari. The Judicial Magistrate ordered that she shall be entitled to maintenance only till minority under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. since she was still minor. The appellant in this appeal is the youngest daughter of the appellant. On February 16, 2011, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class denied her application for maintenance for all; however, maintenance was granted to the appellant until she reached majority.
Whereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 17.02.2014 dismissed the criminal revision appeal of all four of them before the Sessions Judge Court, Rewari. The Learned Judge decided there that the appellant herein is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code only till she attains majority and not beyond. This is because only major children who, because of physical or mental disability or other injury, are unable to maintain themselves are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. Since the appellant in this case did not fall within the ambit of such circumstance, she is entitled to maintenance only till April 26, 2005, or till she attained the age of majority. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge was first taken in appeal to the High Court, which dismissed the same on February 16, 2018, by the High Court. The appellants thereafter approached the Supreme Court.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the unmarried majority age appellant is entitled to maintenance from the respondent under Section 125 of the CrPC even though she is not afflicted with any physical or mental disorder or injuries.
- Whether, therefore, the orders of the Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Court Judge that, in practice, restricted the appellant’s claim for maintenance until her attainment of majority that is until April 26, 2005, and therefore did not impose on the respondent the obligation of paying maintenance to his daughter even after she had reached the age of majority, that is, after April 22, 2005, and she is single?
CONTENTION
APPELLANT SIDE ARGUMENTS
It was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that since she was unable to maintain herself, she was entitled to maintenance from the respondent who is her father.
She further submitted that applicant has attained the majority and is not suffering from any physical or mental injury or infirmity, therefore the High Court erred in rejecting her application and denying her the right to maintenance. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that she be awarded maintenance from the father since she is unemployed and not in a position to maintain herself.
She had, therefore, contended that the respondent is liable to maintain his daughter who is not in a position to maintain herself until she gets married under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. She had placed reliance on the case of Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata and Others. She further submits that she is entitled to maintenance from the respondent, her father, as she is unemployed and unable to maintain herself.
THE RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
According to the learned counsel for the respondent, Section 125 of the CrPc makes it very clear that maintenance can be granted to a major daughter only if she suffers from any physical or mental abnormality or impairment. The learned counsel pressed his case quoting the decisions of the revisional courts and that of the Judicial Magistrate, that revisionist courts have held that appellant did not satisfy the requirement for claiming maintenance from his client as he suffered from no physical or mental disability.
RATIONALE
An unmarried Hindu daughter is entitled to maintenance by her father until she is married. For this, she must be incapable of maintaining herself as required by Section 20(3) of the HAMA, 1956. In order to claim her rights, she has to present her application under Section 20 of the HAMA, 1956. In the case in question, this petition was filed under Section 125 of the CrPC whereas the proper remedy lies under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, thus it is not feasible to support the case. However, the appellant does not fall within the definition of major children as provided under Section 125 CrPC who can’t support themselves on account of mental or physical abnormality or injury.
The Supreme Court went on to say that there were significant differences between Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Section 125 of the CrPC. A Civil Court should determine whether Section 125 CrPC, which provided immediate relief to an applicant in a summary proceeding, has a greater right and amplitude than Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
Following that, the Supreme Court made a valiant effort to draw a line between Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Section 125 of the CrPC. While a claimant can obtain expedited relief in a summary proceeding under Section 125 CrPC, a broader right is granted by Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, which is subject to determination by a civil court. Further relief is provided by Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, which includes the right to a decision from a Civil Court. The applicant is given expedited relief in a summary proceeding in accordance with Section 125 CrPC.
The Supreme Court ruled that a major unmarried daughter would not be eligible for maintenance under Section 20 of the HAMA, 1956 if she had sued her father under Section 125 of the CrPC.
The Supreme Court further noted that the jurisdiction of Family Courts had only been extended to towns and cities with a population of one million or more by the Family Courts Act of 1984. Subject to the aforementioned modification, all proceedings will be conducted by a First-Class Magistrate under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and by a District or subordinate Civil Court under section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, if the latter has jurisdiction over the case. When using his authority under section 125 CrPC, a magistrate is not permitted to try a claim under section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
DEFECTS OF LAW
For Different Maintenance Criteria: The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provide varied criteria in regard to maintenance claims
Under Section 20 of HAMA, the claim of an unmarried daughter for maintenance against her father is maintainable even after attainment of majority if she cannot maintain herself.
Under CrPC, Section 125, maintenance to children is normally provided only up to the attainment of 18 years of age. After attaining majority, the children who are unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental disability alone would be entitled.
These two provisions conflict, and legal confusion arises whereby one issue—maintenance to an unmarried daughter—is covered in two laws. It may have adverse effects in the form of divergent court decisions and decisions from the courts of law not being laid out uniformly, depending on whether a case is argued in view of HAMA or CrPC.
An example of a phrase within the HAMA that has not been defined is “unable to maintain herself”, and thus one can only attach multiple meanings to it. There is no clear rule on what constitutes an inability to maintain oneself, therefore creating several areas of ambiguity. Does the above relate to unemployment, lack of skills, or any situation which challenges financial independence?
The case brought out the vagueness in the application of these laws. Whereas HAMA explicitly mentions the case of maintenance for an unmarried daughter after attaining majority, CrPC is completely silent on such a contingency unless it involves physical or mental incapacity. This silence of the CrPC due to lack of an explicit provision gives room for interpretation and causes further legal confusion.
INFERENCE
The Supreme Court judicially understood this provision Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, an unmarried daughter entitled to claim maintenance from her father even after becoming major on the grounds that if she cannot maintain herself, then due to the following reasons:
Section 20 of HAMA imposes a statutory obligation upon the Hindu father to maintain his unmarried daughter, and such obligation does not come to an end with the daughter attaining the age of majority if she be unable to maintain herself.
Statutory Entitlement Based on Need: The statute recognizes the necessity of maintenance continue to be given to a living, unmarried daughter who is unable to maintain herself, regardless of her age. The Court’s inference on this issue, as far as the maintenance provisions are concerned under HAMA and CrPC, gains significance here:
Whereas HAMA provides that an unmarried daughter, if unable to maintain herself, would be entitled to claim maintenance from her parents even beyond the age of majority, Section 125 of CrPC provides for maintenance only until the attainment of majority, whereupon it ceases, unless the child is unable to maintain themself either physically or mentally.
Independent and Separate Grounds: The Court explained that the provisions of HAMA work independently of the CrPC. It implied that a claim under HAMA for maintenance needs not satisfy the requirements of Section 125 of the CrPC. This is a vital distinction because there is much more scope for maintenance under the HAMA compared to the CrPC.
The Court inferred that Section 125 of CrPC is not the exclusive provision for claiming maintenance in cases where personal laws, such as HAMA, provide for specific entitlements:
Supplementation Nature of CrPC CrPC is supplementary and in addition to any of the rights under personal laws, which are not replaced or excluded by it. Consequently, if personal laws, such as HAMA, provide for maintenance, a provision made therein would have an overriding effect upon the provisions for persons governed by those personal laws.
Even though the CrPC has laid down the restriction on age with respect to maintenance, no such restriction has been conferred under HAMA upon unmarried daughters, reiterating that the statutory rights available to them under personal laws need not necessarily be bound by the general provisions of the CrPC.
Name: Sakshi Kasala
College: Ramaiah College of Law