The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has ruled that a Family Court cannot award maintenance to an adult, unmarried daughter under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) while adjudicating an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The court, presided over by Justice Rajnish Kumar, held that a claim under HAMA is a civil right that must be decided through a proper civil suit, not a summary criminal proceeding. Setting aside a Family Court’s order, the High Court remitted the matter, directing that the application could be converted into a civil suit to be decided afresh in accordance with the law.
Case Background:
The case originated from a criminal revision petition filed by Anurag Pandey challenging a judgment dated July 30, 2024, by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur. The Family Court had ordered Mr. Pandey to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹10,000 to his adult daughter, Kumari Neha Pandey, from the date of her application. The daughter had filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, clearly stating in her application that she had already attained the age of majority. The Family Court, while deciding the CrPC application, granted relief by invoking the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. This order prompted the father to file a revision petition before the Allahabad High Court.
Arguments of the Parties:
The counsel for the revisionist, Anurag Pandey, argued that the Family Court’s order was legally untenable. The primary contention was that Section 125 CrPC allows for maintenance only for minor children, with a specific exception for major children who are unable to maintain themselves due to any “physical or mental abnormality or injury.” Since the daughter was a major and did not fall under this exception, her application under Section 125 CrPC was not maintainable. It was further argued that if the Family Court intended to grant maintenance under HAMA, it was obligated to convert the proceedings into a civil suit and adjudicate the matter according to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The revisionist submitted that the trial court had incorrectly interpreted the Supreme Court’s precedent in Abhilasha vs. Parkash and others; (2021) 13 SCC 99.
The counsel for the respondent daughter, while noting her need for financial support, did not contest the legal position advanced by the revisionist. In a fair submission to the court, her counsel agreed that the impugned order could be set aside and the matter remanded to the Family Court. It was proposed that the application be converted into a suit under Section 20(3) of HAMA to avoid multiplicity of litigation, with a request for a time-bound decision.
Court’s Analysis and Findings:
Justice Rajnish Kumar, upon perusing the records and hearing the arguments, embarked on a detailed analysis of the distinct legal frameworks governing maintenance.
The Court first examined the scope of Section 125 CrPC, noting that its provisions explicitly provide maintenance for a “legitimate or illegitimate minor child.” The judgment clarified that an unmarried major daughter could only claim maintenance under this section if she is unable to maintain herself due to a physical or mental abnormality or injury, which was not the case here.
Next, the Court turned to the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It highlighted Section 20(3) of HAMA, which establishes the obligation of a Hindu person to maintain their unmarried daughter who “is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property.” The Court also pointed to Section 23 of HAMA, which lays down the criteria for determining the amount of maintenance, including the status of the parties, the claimant’s reasonable wants, and their own property and income.
The judgment then delved into the procedural distinctions mandated by the Family Courts Act, 1984. The Court explained that a Family Court possesses dual jurisdiction. Under Section 7(2)(a), it exercises the powers of a Magistrate of the First Class for proceedings under Chapter IX of the CrPC (which includes Section 125). However, under Section 7(1)(a) read with Explanation (f), it also exercises the jurisdiction of a district or subordinate civil court for a “suit or proceeding for maintenance.”
Crucially, Section 10 of the Family Courts Act prescribes different procedures for these two jurisdictions. Proceedings under Chapter IX of the CrPC must be governed by the CrPC, while suits and other proceedings must follow the CPC. The Court noted that the remedies against the final orders are also different: an order under Section 125 CrPC is challenged through a revision, whereas an order in a civil maintenance suit is challenged via an appeal.
The High Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Abhilasha vs. Parkash, quoting the apex court’s finding that:
“The purpose and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as noted above is to provide immediate relief to applicant in a summary proceedings, whereas right under Section 20 read with Section 3(b) of Act, 1956 contains larger right, which needs determination by a Civil Court, hence for the larger claims as enshrined under Section 20, the proceedings need to be initiated under Section 20 of the Act and the legislature never contemplated to burden the Magistrate while exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to determine the claims contemplated by Act, 1956.”
Applying this precedent, the High Court concluded that the Family Court had erred. Since the daughter was already a major when she filed her application, her claim did not fall within the summary jurisdiction of Section 125 CrPC. Her right to maintenance, if any, arose under Section 20(3) of HAMA, which requires a civil trial. The Family Court could not grant a civil remedy based on a summary criminal proceeding.
The Court held:
“…this Court is of the view that if the application has been filed under Section 125 CrPC, it can be got converted into a suit under Section 20 of the Act of 1956 as it is to be dealt by the same court and after converting under the relevant provision and dealing with the application as suit for maintenance and after adopting the procedure as prescribed and upon consideration of pleadings and evidence on record under the provision of Act of 1956, if the Family Court finds that the case for maintenance is made out, the court can order for maintenance to avoid multiplicity of suits, but not on the basis of summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.”
Decision:
In light of the analysis and the consensus between the parties, the High Court allowed the criminal revision. The judgment and order dated July 30, 2024, passed by the Family Court, Sultanpur, were set aside.
The matter was remitted back to the concerned Family Court. The Court directed that the respondent daughter may move an application for converting her application under Section 125 CrPC into a suit under Section 20(3) of HAMA. The Family Court was instructed to consider and pass appropriate orders on such an application in accordance with the law and the observations in the High Court’s judgment. Furthermore, the High Court directed the Family Court to endeavour to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months, without granting unnecessary adjournments.
