The High Court of Orissa has upheld a Family Court order directing a man to pay maintenance to his major, unmarried daughter, ruling that the daughter’s right under personal law can be enforced in a proceeding initiated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Justice G. Satapathy dismissed a revision petition filed by the father, confirming that an unmarried Hindu daughter is entitled to maintenance from her father until her marriage, provided she is unable to maintain herself.
The Court confirmed the order of the Judge, Family Court, Bargarh, which had directed the petitioner-husband to pay maintenance of ₹5,000 per month each to his wife and daughter, totaling ₹10,000 per month, from the date of their application in 2012.
Case Background
The petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 were married on January 19, 2001, and have a daughter, opposite party No. 2. Due to disputes, the wife alleged desertion by the husband in 2004. Subsequently, the husband filed for divorce and obtained an ex-parte decree on March 8, 2007. The wife’s application to set aside this decree was eventually dismissed for default.
On March 6, 2012, the wife and daughter filed a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance. They claimed the husband, an advocate, earned substantially from his profession, a Hero Honda showroom, and rental income.
The husband contested the claim, arguing that his wife, who holds an M.A. and LL.B. degree, was earning more than him as an LIC agent and a teacher, and owned property. He further contended that she had deserted him without cause and that their daughter, having attained majority, was not entitled to maintenance.
The Family Court, Bargarh, after considering the evidence, passed an order on December 23, 2019, granting maintenance to both the wife and daughter. Aggrieved by this decision, the husband filed the present revision petition before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner-husband, through his counsel Mr. B.P.B. Bahali, raised three primary arguments:
- The wife is a well-qualified and earning lady and is therefore not entitled to maintenance.
- The daughter, having attained majority, is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
- The wife voluntarily deserted him without any valid reason.
Countering these submissions, Mr. A. Pradhan, counsel for the wife and daughter, argued that the wife, despite being an advocate, did not have sufficient income to support herself and their daughter, who is a law student. It was submitted that the husband’s second marriage constituted a valid reason for the wife to live separately. The counsel further contended that the husband was a man of sufficient means, with income from his profession and a spare parts shop, and was legally obligated to maintain his first wife and daughter.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice G. Satapathy addressed each of the petitioner’s contentions in detail.
On the Plea of Desertion: The Court quickly dismissed the husband’s claim of desertion. It noted the undisputed fact that the husband had married for a second time. The judgment stated, “…it can be well presumed that the OP No.1 has a valid excuse in law to live separately from the revision-petitioner, which is in fact mandated in the explanation appended to Sub-Sec(3) of Sec. 125 of the CrPC, wherein it is laid down that if a husband has contacted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him.”
On Maintenance for a Major Unmarried Daughter: This was the central legal issue in the case. The Court acknowledged that Section 125(1)(c) of the CrPC provides for maintenance for a major child only if they are unable to maintain themselves due to “any physical or mental abnormality or injury.”
However, the Court turned to the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). It highlighted Section 20(3) of HAMA, which obligates a person to maintain their unmarried daughter who is unable to maintain herself from her own earnings or property.
The Court observed that the purpose of Section 125 CrPC is to provide relief from destitution and vagrancy. To avoid forcing the daughter to file a separate proceeding under her personal law, the Court held that the Family Court, which has jurisdiction to decide cases under both CrPC and HAMA, could grant the relief in the same proceeding.
Justice Satapathy relied on the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench decision in Jagdish Jugtawat vrs. Manju Lata and others; (2002) 5 SCC 422, which held that the right of a minor girl for maintenance from her parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized in Section 20(3) of HAMA. The apex court had approved an order passed on “a combined reading of Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.”
The High Court concluded, “…it is the substance, but not the form under which a party applies to the Court and appropriate relief, to which such party is entitled to, should not be withheld merely because the petition has been filed under wrong nomenclature.” Thus, the plea that a major unmarried daughter cannot claim maintenance was found to be unsustainable.
On Quantum of Maintenance and Wife’s Income: The Court rejected the husband’s argument that his wife’s qualifications disentitled her from receiving maintenance. While acknowledging that the wife is an advocate, the trial court had found that not all advocates have sufficient income. The petitioner-husband had failed to produce any evidence to establish her actual earnings.
Conversely, the Court noted the husband’s financial status as evidenced by his income tax returns for 2016-19, which showed a gross total income of ₹6,06,888 in 2018-19, and his investments.
The Court refused to accept a generalization that qualified women intentionally remain idle to claim maintenance, stating, “…it would be unfair to say that the wives are breeding a class of idle women to burden their husband.” Finding that the wife and daughter lacked sufficient means to maintain themselves, the Court held the husband liable.
Final Decision
Based on its analysis, the High Court concluded that the maintenance amount of ₹5,000 per month each for the wife and daughter was not “exorbitant or on higher side,” considering the cost of living and the husband’s financial capacity. The entitlement of the daughter was clarified to be effective “till she remains unmarried.”
The revision petition was dismissed, and the judgment of the Family Court, Bargarh, dated December 23, 2019, was confirmed.
