The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has held that adult, unmarried daughters who are physically and mentally sound are not entitled to maintenance from their father under Section 488 of the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court set aside maintenance orders passed in favour of two such daughters, observing that the statutory conditions for granting maintenance were not satisfied.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a maintenance petition filed by the two unmarried daughters and one son of the petitioner, Abdul Raheem Bhat, before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Anantnag, on 10.07.2014. The petition was registered as file No. 17/Jeem and sought maintenance under Section 488 of the CrPC. At the time of filing, all three children had attained the age of majority.
Subsequently, Abdul Raheem Bhat, claiming to be dependent on his son, filed a separate petition for maintenance under the same provision before the same Magistrate on 31.12.2014, registered as file No. 54/M. This petition was allowed on 28.08.2017, and the Magistrate awarded him ₹2,000 per month from his son, Sameer Ahmad Bhat, holding that the petitioner was unable to maintain himself.
On the other hand, the petition filed by his children remained pending for nearly five years and was finally disposed of on 09.04.2019. By this order, the Magistrate directed Abdul Raheem Bhat to pay ₹1,200 per month each to his two unmarried daughters, with effect from 10.07.2014.
Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a criminal revision before the Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag, which was dismissed on 26.02.2021. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to invoke its inherent jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis and Interpretation of Section 488 CrPC
Justice Rahul Bharti examined Section 488 of the J&K CrPC, which was in force at the relevant time. The provision allows a Magistrate to order maintenance for a wife, a legitimate or illegitimate minor child, a legitimate or illegitimate adult child who is unable to maintain themselves due to a physical or mental abnormality, and for father or mother who is unable to maintain themselves.
The Court highlighted the statutory limitation for adult children under clause (c) of Section 488(1):
“…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…”
Justice Bharti observed:
“A bare perusal of section 488 would show that the two unmarried daughters of the petitioner, being of major age but suffering no physical/mental abnormality or injury rendering them unable to maintain themselves, were not supposed to invoke section 488 Cr.P.C. by any stretch of claim or reasoning…”
The High Court found that both the Judicial Magistrate and the Principal Sessions Judge had overlooked this essential legal requirement while directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to his adult daughters.
Finding the orders of the lower courts to be legally unsustainable, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the orders passed against Abdul Raheem Bhat:
“Both the orders are held to be illegal and are hereby set aside. The petition is allowed. Disposed of.”
Case Title: Abdul Raheem Bhat v. Beauty Jan and Others
Case No.: CRM(M) No. 177/2022
Bench: Justice Rahul Bharti
