Court Rules Availability of Alternative Remedy Under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act Not a Bar to Maintenance Claim Under Cr.P.C.; Maintenance to Son Valid Though He Attained Majority During Proceedings
In a significant judgment delivered on October 13, 2026, by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Justice Mehroz K. Pathan dismissed a criminal revision filed by Anand Harishchandra Chouhan challenging a Family Court order granting maintenance to his major unmarried daughter and minor son. The Family Court had awarded Rs. 7,000 each as monthly maintenance to the children while denying maintenance to the wife on the ground that she was earning.
The father contended that the daughter, aged 23 at the time of the revision filing, was not entitled to maintenance as she was a major and had an alternative remedy under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). He argued that the Family Court erred in granting maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), and that the son, who attained majority during the pendency of the revision, was also not entitled to maintenance.
However, the Court observed that the mere existence of an alternative remedy under Section 20(3) of HAMA does not bar a claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., especially when the father failed to demonstrate the daughter's ability to maintain herself. The Court relied on precedents including the Supreme Court judgment in Abhilasha v. Parkash (2021) and Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata (2002), which recognize that a major unmarried daughter can claim maintenance from her father until marriage. The Court emphasized that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide a speedy, summary remedy to secure maintenance, which is distinct yet complementary to remedies under personal laws such as HAMA.
Regarding the son, the Court held that the Family Court's order could not be faulted merely because he attained majority during the pendency of the revision. Any change in circumstance after the order can be addressed by the father through an appropriate application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. The Court further noted that a father's obligation does not automatically end when a child attains majority if the child is still studying and unable to maintain himself.
The Court also found no error in the Family Court's refusal of maintenance to the wife, who was earning Rs. 40,000 per month, while the father earned Rs. 71,000 per month and was maintaining his elderly parents. The maintenance awarded to the children was considered just and proper.
The revision petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the Family Court's order dated December 7, 2019, granting maintenance to the children.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's pragmatic approach to maintenance claims, recognizing the continuing duty of a father to support his unmarried major daughter and minor son, and affirms that alternate remedies under personal law do not preclude claims under the Cr.P.C.
Bottom Line:
Maintenance - Major unmarried daughter can be granted maintenance and mere availability of alternative remedy under Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act is not a bar to claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Maintenance granted to son who was minor on date of order cannot be faulted merely because he attained majority during pendency of revision; father may seek appropriate relief under Section 127 Cr.P.C.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 125, 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
Anand Harishchandra Chouhan v. Smt. Shaila, (Bombay)(Nagpur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2996254
