The Allahabad High Court has recently clarified that a major, unmarried daughter who is physically and mentally fit cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court has specified that such claims for maintenance should instead be pursued under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).

Key Points of the Ruling

• Section 125 CrPC Limitations: The High Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is designed to provide a swift, summary remedy for immediate relief to wives, minor children, and dependent parents. It primarily caters to minor children or major children with physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from self-support.

• Section 20(3) HAMA Applicability: The court clarified that Section 20(3) of the HAMA establishes a broader obligation for parents to support an unmarried daughter who cannot maintain herself. Claims under this section are civil in nature and require a comprehensive trial, unlike the summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.

• Conversion of Proceedings: The High Court addressed the scenario where a minor daughter becomes a major while the Section 125 CrPC application is pending. In such instances, the Family Court can invoke Section 20(3) of the HAMA within the same proceedings. However, if the application is filed after the daughter attains majority, it cannot be decided through a summary proceeding and must be converted into a formal suit.

• Family Court's Jurisdiction: The court acknowledged that Family Courts possess jurisdiction under both the CrPC and the HAMA. This allows the court to address maintenance claims for unmarried major daughters, even if they have become majors, under Section 20 of the HAMA.

Background and Arguments

The ruling came in response to a case where an unmarried daughter sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The father contested the claim, arguing that Section 125 CrPC only applies to minor children or those with disabilities. The High Court concurred, noting that the daughter did not fall under these exceptions.

The father's counsel also argued that the Family Court had misinterpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Abhilasha vs. Parkash (2021), which differentiated between maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and Section 20 of the HAMA. The daughter's counsel conceded the legal point but affirmed her genuine need for financial assistance.

Implications of the Ruling

The Allahabad High Court's decision clarifies the appropriate legal avenue for major, unmarried daughters seeking maintenance from their parents. It reinforces that while Section 125 CrPC offers a quick remedy for certain categories of dependents, claims by able-bodied, major, unmarried daughters should be pursued through a civil suit under Section 20(3) of the HAMA. This ensures a more thorough examination of the case, considering factors such as the daughter's inability to support herself and the parents' financial capacity. The court also highlighted that Section 125 CrPC provides maintenance for a "legitimate or illegitimate minor child" and 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.