The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, has modified a Family Court order, ruling that maintenance granted to daughters under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) cannot extend beyond their attainment of majority, unless they are unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormality or injury.
In a judgment pronounced on November 7, 2025, Justice Vrushali V. Joshi, partly allowed a father’s revision application, limiting his liability to pay maintenance to his two daughters only until they turn 18.
Background of the Case
The applicant filed Criminal Revision Application No. 25/2023, being aggrieved by a judgment and order dated December 2, 2022, passed by the Family Court, Yavatmal.
The Family Court, in Petition No. E-6/2020, had directed the applicant to pay maintenance to his two daughters (aged 17 and 15 at the time of the High Court application). The order directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month each to the daughters from the date of the petition (July 22, 2013) till the date of the order, and subsequently to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month each “from the date of order till they get married or start earning whichever is earlier.”
The applicant challenged this order specifically on the ground that it granted maintenance to the daughters “even after attending their majority.”
Arguments of the Parties
The learned Advocate for the applicant, Mr. M.I. Dhatrak, urged that the Family Court’s order was passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It was argued that “There is no provision under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to grant maintenance to the children who attain majority and are not physically and mentally abnormal or injured due to which unable to maintain themselves.”
The applicant contended that the case of his daughters (the non-applicants) was not covered under Section 125(1)(c) of the Cr.P.C., and therefore prayed to modify the impugned order to that extent.
The non-applicants (the wife and two daughters) were served but did not appear before the High Court. The matter was heard in their absence.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court framed a “very short question” for consideration in the revision application: “whether a daughter can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C from her father after attending majority?”
The Court reproduced the relevant provision, Section 125(1)(c) of the Cr.P.C., which states that a person having sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain: “(c) 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, or…”
Based on this provision, the judgment stated, “In proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. a major daughter cannot claim maintenance relying on the liability of the father to maintain his unmarried daughter.”
The High Court did note the legal position established by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abhilasha V/s. Prakash and others ((2021) 13 SCC 99). It observed that the Apex Court held that “an unmarried daughter can claim maintenance under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act” and that a Family Court can grant such maintenance by “enforcing her right under Section 20 of the said Act.”
However, focusing on the provision under which the original order was passed, the High Court concluded, “After considering the provisions of Section 125(c) Cr.P.C. the order passed by the Family Court granting maintenance after attending the majority and up to the marriage of non-applicant Nos.2 and 3 is required to be modified.”
Partly allowing the criminal revision application, the Court passed its final order: “The order passed by the Family Court is modified to the extent that the maintenance which is granted to non-applicant Nos.2 and 3 will be continued till they attend majority.”
