Bombay High Court: Unmarried Daughter Though Attained Majority Is Entitled To Claim Maintenance From Her Father

Must Read

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was...

Follow us

Case: Agnes Lily Irudaya v Irudaya Kani Arsan

Coram: Smt. Bharathi H. Dangre, J.

The case was filed by the petitioner on behalf of the daughter to claim maintenance in the Family Court. Two core issues were adjudicated upon:

  • Whether an unmarried daughter can claim compensation u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after attaining majority?
  • Whether the petitioner can file on behalf of the daughter who has attained majority?

The Family Court rejected both the contentions. The Court rejected the application for seeking maintenance u/s 125 for the daughter who has attained majority. Simultaneously, the Court also held that the petitioner cannot file on behalf of the daughter who has attained majority. The petitioner then moved to the High Court against the impugned order.

Section 125 of the CrPC mandates maintenance to the wife, minor children (legitimate/illegitimate), children who have attained majority but are unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormality or injury. The provision does not state the entitlement of maintenance to the child who has attained majority. The premise of the order of the Family Court was upon the simple reading of the law. But, the High Court based its judgment relying upon the reasoning given by the Hon’ Supreme Court of India and did not make the strict interpretation of the provision.

The Court held that a father cannot escape his liability of maintaining the minor daughter who has attained majority. The Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish

Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata and ors reported in (2002) 5 SCC 422, wherein the combined reading of Section 125 of the CrPC and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act manifest the right of the minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority.

It is clear that the unmarried daughter though the attained majority is entitled to claim maintenance from her father.

The Court, therefore, answered the first issue in the affirmative reversing the order passed by the Family Court. It is clear that the unmarried daughter though the attained majority is entitled to claim maintenance from her father. The next issue too was answered in the affirmative. The Court rejected the “hypertechnical objection” of the respondent. It stated that the mother i.e. the petitioner approached the court for the maintenance of her daughter to cover her expenses. It found no fault in the petition as it further stated that even if the daughter would have approached the court, the parameters would have been same. Since, the wife has not claimed maintenance for herself and did not deny the factum of her employment, the court in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceeding, found no fault in the petition.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

Supreme Court Upheld “Environmental Rule of Law” in NGT Decision to Demolish Illegal Hotel on Forest Land

This case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex along with a bus stand and...

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -