The Bombay High Court has held that the mere availability of an alternate remedy under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) cannot be a bar to an unmarried major daughter’s claim to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure).

The High Court was considering a revision filed by the applicant, challenging the common judgment passed by the Family Court granting maintenance to two children to the tune of Rs 7000 each.

The Single Bench of Justice Mehroz K. Pathan held, “In so far as the non-applicant no.2-daughter is concerned, the applicant has raised a ground that the non-applicant no.2 is having alternate remedy to file application for grant of maintenance under Section 20(3) of HAMA 1956. However, mere availability of such an alternate remedy cannot be a bar to claim a maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., particularly, when the applicant has failed to show that the non-applicant no.2/daughter is able to maintain herself.”

Advocate Siddharth M. Lodha represented the applicant while Advocate S.A.Sahu represented the non-applicant.

Arguments

The applicant father claimed that the non-applicant wife is a teacher; however, she still failed to bear the expenses of the children (non-applicants). The applicant was working as a teacher; however, he had to maintain old-aged parents and the non-applicants became major.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the Family Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the non-applicant/wife is earning Rs 40,000 per month as a teacher, had specifically denied maintenance to the non-applicant/wife. The Bench found that after taking into consideration the fact that the applicant/husband was also earning Rs 71,000 per month, had granted the maintenance of Rs 7000 each to the non-applicants in the year 2019.

Considering that the third non-applicant had not attained majority at the time of passing of the impugned judgment, the Bench held, “Thus, the impugned judgment dated 07.12.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Nagpur cannot be faulted on the ground that the non-applicant no.3 has now attained majority and not maintainable under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

Considering the second child’s circumstances, the Bench held that the mere availability of an alternate remedy under HAMA was bar for the unmarried daughter to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.

Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata and others (2002) which had upheld the ground of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to a daughter even after attaining majority, the Bench found no error committed by the Family Court in granting maintenance.

Decision

The Bench thus dismissed the Revision considering such factual and legal aspects.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:13753)

Click here to read/download Order


Bombay High CourtJustice Mehroz K. Pathan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.