Hindu Father Bound To Maintain Unmarried Daughter As Per S. 20 HAM Act If She Is Unable To Maintain Herself: Allahabad HC

“Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is nothing but recognition of principles of Hindu Law regarding maintenance of children and aged parents. Section 20(3) now makes it statutory obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property,” a bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam remarked.

The single Judge observed thus while dealing with a petition filed by one Awadhesh Singh challenging a September 2023 judgment and order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras, directing him to provide maintenance of Rs. 25,000/—per month to the wife (Urmila) and Rs. 20,000/—per month to the daughter (Km. Gauri Nandini).

Another plea was filed by the wife and daughter seeking an enhancement of the maintenance amount. Both the petitions were clubbed and decided together.

It was the case of the Wife that she got married to Awdhesh Singh/revisionist, in 1992. Thereafter, she and her daughter were ill-treated by the husband and his family members, and ultimately, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home along with her daughter in February 2009.

The applicant-wife had no means to support herself and her daughter, so she moved the court seeking maintenance from the date she was turned out from the matrimonial home. This application was filed in October 2009.

On the other hand, it was the Husband/father's case that the opposite party no. 3/Km. Gauri Nandini (daughter) was born on June 25, 2005, and attained the age of majority on June 25, 2023, before the order impugned dated September 26, 2023.

Hence, it was submitted that the family court erred in law in awarding maintenance to the daughter, who was major on the date of order and was not entitled to maintenance in view of the provisions of Section 125 CrPC.

It was contended that the Apex Court, in the case of Abhilasha v. Parkash and others 2020, had held that an unmarried daughter who has attained majority and is not suffering any mental or physical abnormality is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

On the other hand, it was argued by the counsel for the wife and daughter that the trial court correctly awarded maintenance to both of them as, according to Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, a daughter is entitled to maintenance until she is married.

Given this provision, it was contended that it would be pointless to reverse the trial court's decision and require the daughter to pursue a separate application under the 1956 Act for the same relief already granted under Section 125 CrPC.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Court, at the outset, noted that before codification, under the Classical Hindu Law, a Hindu male was always held morally and legally liable to maintain his aged parents, a virtuous wife and an infant child.

Emphasising that the Hindu Law always recognised the father's liability to maintain an unmarried daughter, the Court also considered the mandate of Section 20(3) of 1956 to note that it recognises the principles of Hindu Law regarding the maintenance of children and aged parents.

Here, it may be noted that Section 20(3) of the 1956 Act makes it a statutory obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and cannot maintain herself out of her earnings or other property.

Further, the Court referred to a Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata 2002, wherein the Family Court had granted maintenance of Rs. 500 per month to the petitioner's minor unmarried daughter, based on an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Court noted that in the above-named case, when the petitioner challenged this decision in the High Court, arguing that the daughter was entitled to maintenance only until she reached a majority, the High Court, while agreeing that u/s 125 CrPC, a minor daughter is only entitled to maintenance until she attains a majority, held that Section 20(3) of the 1956 Act would come to the daughter's aid, extending maintenance rights beyond the age of majority.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment by observing that a minor girl's right to maintenance from her parents after attaining a majority till her marriage is recognized in Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the judgment/order passed by the learned Single Judge for maintaining the order passed by the Family Court which is based on a combined reading of Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.

Against this backdrop, the Single Judge upheld the Family Court's order, noting that the impugned order had been passed by the Family Court, which has jurisdiction under both the Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 125 CrPC, and Section 20 of the 1956 Act.

“Since, in the present case, the order has been passed by the family court which has jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as application under Sub-clause (3) of Section 20 of Act of 1956, no purpose will be served in interfering with the revision and relegating the daughter to move a fresh application before the same court under different provision of law i.e. Section 20(3) of Act of 1956, and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order…,” the Court said as it dismissed father's criminal revision plea.

So far as the revision filed by the wife and daughter was concerned, the Court noted that since the amount of maintenance awarded by the family court was just, no interference was required with the order impugned at the behest of the wife and daughter. Consequently, the said plea was dismissed.

However, the Court clarified that the dismissal of the revision plea would not prevent revisionists from claiming suitable modification of the order in view of the provisions of Section 127 CrPC or enhancing the amount of maintenance by moving an appropriate application before the Family Court.

Appearances

Counsel for Revisionist (Husband): Varun Srivastava, Vishnu Bihari Tewari

Counsel for Opposite Party (wife and daughter): Ashwani Kumar Yadav

Case title - Awadhesh Singh vs. State Of Up 2 Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 513

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 513

Click Here To Read/Download Order