The Bombay High Court at Nagpur has held that the mere availability of an alternate remedy under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) does not bar a major unmarried daughter from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court dismissed a father’s revision against a Family Court order granting ₹7,000 a month each to his daughter and son.
Justice Mehroz K. Pathan upheld the Family Court’s order. The Court also held that the son attaining majority during the pendency of the revision could be raised under Section 127 CrPC before the appropriate forum.
Background
The father had challenged a common judgment dated 07.12.2019 passed by the Family Court, Nagpur. That judgment granted maintenance of ₹7,000 each to his two children from the date of the judgment.
The Family Court denied maintenance to the wife, noting that she earned ₹40,000 a month as a teacher. However, considering that the husband earned ₹71,000 a month, it granted maintenance to the children.
Arguments
Advocate Siddharth M. Lodha, appearing for the father, submitted that the wife was a teacher in a Nagar Parishad School and still failed to bear the children’s expenses. He submitted that the father, also a teacher, had to maintain his aged parents. He argued that both children had become major: the daughter before the impugned order, and the son during the pendency of the revision.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Abhilasha v. Parkash and others, 2021(13) SCC 99, he contended that a major unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father under Section 20(3) of HAMA, provided she pleads and proves that she cannot maintain herself. He argued that since the daughter had an alternative remedy under HAMA, the grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was illegal. He further submitted that only minor children are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Advocate S.A. Sahu, appearing for the wife and children, opposed the revision. He contended that the reliance on Abhilasha was misconceived. He cited the High Court’s decision in Murlidhar Krushnarao Virulkar v. Ku. Neha, 2024 SCC Online Bom 3706, where the Court observed that it would be harsh to ask a daughter to file a fresh application under Section 20(3) of HAMA after about nine years. He submitted that the son was a minor when the impugned judgment was passed and, though now a major, remained unable to maintain himself.
Court’s Findings
The Court noted that it was an admitted fact that the son had not attained majority when the impugned judgment was passed. The Family Court’s order therefore could not be faulted on the ground that he had since become a major.
On the daughter’s claim, the Court held:
“mere availability of such an alternate remedy cannot be a bar to claim a maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., particularly, when the applicant has failed to show that the non-applicant no.2/daughter is able to maintain herself.”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata and others, 2002(5) SCC 422. In that case, the Supreme Court held that “the right of a minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized in Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.” Applying this, Justice Pathan observed that “there appears to be no error committed by the learned Family Court in granting maintenance even to a unmarried major daughter.”
On the son attaining majority, the Court said the grievance “can be very well raised in an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. to be filed before the appropriate forum.” It also referred to the Delhi High Court’s decision in Urvashi Aggarwal and others v. Inderpaul Aggarwal, which observed:
“It cannot be said that the obligation of a father would come to an end and when his son reaches 18 years of age and the entire burden of his education and other expenses would fall only on the mother”
Outcome
The Court held that the grant of maintenance of ₹7,000 each to the children “does not appear to be erroneous”. It dismissed the revision as devoid of merit.
Case Title: Anand Harishchandra Chouhan v. Smt. Shaila & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2022
Bench: Justice Mehroz K. Pathan
Date: 13 October 2026
