Chattisgarh High Court
Shri Raju Ramteke vs Shristi Ramteke on 14 October, 2022
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved for orders on : 26/08/2022
Order delivered on : 14/10/2022
CRR No. 282 of 2020
1. Shri Raju Ramteke S/o Late Hunni Lal Ramteke, Aged About 54 Years,
R/o D-13, Sector 02, Avanti Vihar, Near Pani Tanki, Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Smt. Rukhmani W/o Shri Raju Ramteke, Aged About 56 Years, R/o D-
13, Sector 02, Avanti Vihar, Near Pani Tanki, Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicants
Versus
1. Shristi Ramteke D/o Shri Raju Ramteke, Aged About 24 Years, Present
R/o 358-A, Dhaka Johar, Mukharji Nagar, Delhi 110009, Mo. No.
8750077351, 8743878100
2. Vaishali Ramteke D/o Shri Raju Ramteke, Aged About 21 Years, Present
R/o 358-A, Dhaka Johar, Mukharji Nagar, Delhi 110009, Mo. No.
8750077351, 8743878100
----Respondents
For Applicants - Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate.
For Respondents - Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey C A V ORDER 14-10-2022
1. The applicants herein are parents of respondents who have challenged the order dated 22-01-2020 passed by the First Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur in MJC Case No.87/2019 whereby the application moved by respondents under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the applicants herein are directed to pay maintenance of Rs.8000/- - Rs.8000/-.
2. From the impugned order it appears that respondent No.1 is aged about 24 years and respondent No.2 is aged about 21 years. They moved application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that respondent No.1 is studying in Delhi since 2012 and respondent No.2 since 2015. Earlier they were residing along with their parents. In Delhi they are staying in a rented -2- house and preparing for competitive exams. The respondent No.1 has passed the entry examination and taken admission in Banaras Hindu Vishwavidalya in the year 2018, whereas, respondent No.2 has completed her graduation. They further stated that their parents are financially sound, therefore, they were sent for higher education to Delhi. In the month of November, 2018 when they came back to their parents on occasion of Diwali, they were ousted from the house by their parents and on the next date a report was lodged and thereafter they came back to Delhi. They pleaded that they have no sufficient source of income and are unable to maintain themselves, therefore they need Rs.15000
- 20,000/- per month. Their parents have stopped sending money since November, 2018.In toto they claimed maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per month.
3. The applicants herein filed reply stating that their daughters are major, educated and physically fit and therefore, they are not entitled for grant of maintenance. They further pleaded that they are aware of their liabilities, therefore, they sent their daughters for higher education to Delhi and a loan was also taken for their studies. They further stated that their daughters have completed their graduation and they are able to earn one's living. At present their financial condition is not sound to continue studies of their daughters in other city.
4. The learned Faimly Court framed two issues, firstly whether the respondents herein are residing separately on account of sufficient reason and secondly whether the respondents are unable to maintain themselves and are entitled for grant of maintenance.
5. Ku. Shristi Ramteke examined herself as AW-1 and one witness Ku. Vaishali as AW-2, whereas, the applicant No.1 herein examined himself as NAW-1 and applicant No.2 as NAW-2. The respondents/daughters have repeated contents of their application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in their evidence. Whereas, applicant No.1 has stated that he got retired from the -3- services and financially he is not sound to send his daughters to Delhi for studies and he wants to keep their daughters along with him. He further stated that when his daughters came back from Delhi, they attacked him along with some unwanted elements and also set ablaze his vehicle.
6. Learned trial Court considering the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and relying upon the judgment of various High Courts and further taking into consideration the amount of pension which applicant No.1 is getting, i.e., Rs.24,500/-, allowed the application moved by the respondents herein and awarded Rs.8000/- - Rs.8000/- to the respondents as maintenance.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on the date of filing application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. the respondents were major, they have completed their education, they are physically fit, they can earn their living and further according to Section 125(1)(c) the respondents are not suffering from any ailment or disease, therefore, they are not entitled to get maintenance and the remedy available to the respondents is to file Civil Suit under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
8. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents/daughters submits that the respondents are still pursuing their studies and they are also preparing for competitive examinations. They have no source of income and are dependent upon their parents. Though, they have attained majority, but still they are unmarried and from a conjoint reading of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, it is apparent that the respondents are entitled for grant of maintenance and the learned Family Court has rightly allowed the application moved by them. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Agnes Lily Irudaya Vs. Irudaya Kani Arsan, 2018 LawSuit(Bom) 626 and stated that for educational and other expenses of the daughter, maintenance can be granted.
-4-
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. For consideration of this case, Section 125(1)(c) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are relevant and provisions of both the sections are reproduced hereinbelow:-
Section 125(1)(c) of the Cr.P.C.
"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents - (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain -
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx
xxxxxx xxxxxxx
(c) - his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or ............"
Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 "20. Maintenance of children and aged parents.-- xxxxxx xxxxxx (3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property. Explanation.-- In this section "parent" includes a childless step-mother."
11. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. entitles a daughter to claim maintenance who has attained majority, where such person by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself. From perusal of the application moved under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. it is clear that on the date of filing the application on 11-01-2019 the respondent No.1 was aged about 24 years and respondent No.2 was aged about 21 years. In the application it is nowhere -5- pleaded that the respondents are suffering from any disabilities or ailment. From contents of para 1 to 4, it is crystal clear that they have completed their graduation and are preparing for competitive examinations. In the relief clause they have claimed monthly rent Rs.15,500/- ration, medical, other expenses Rs.10,000/-, total Rs.25,500/- per month.
Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 deals with provisions as to bounden duty of a Hindu to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children or aged or infirm parents. Sub-section 3 specifically says about obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parents or a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the parents or unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain herself or himself out of his or her own earnings or other property. Scope of this Section is wider than Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. limits the claim of maintenance of child until he or she attains majority, whereas, by statute of Section 125(1)(c) the unmarried daughter, though she has attained majority, is entitled for maintenance where she by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself. But, by the statute of Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 a daughter who is physically fit, but unmarried may claim maintenance even after attaining majority.
12. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the Case of Abhilasha Vs. Prakash and others, 2021(1) C.G.L.J. 240 (SC) has dealt with the same issue and in paras 33, 36, 38 held as follows:-
"33. There may be a case where the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as the suit under Section 20 of Act, 1956, in such eventuality, Family Court can exercise jurisdiction under both the Acts and in an appropriate case can grant maintenance to unmarried daughter even though she has become major enforcing her -6- right under Section 20 of Act, 1956 so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings as observed by this Court in the case of Jagdish Jugtawat (supra)[(2002) 5 SCC 422]. However the Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot pass such order.
36. The purpose and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as noted above is to provide immediate relief to applicant in a summary proceedings, whereas right under Section 20 read with Section 3(b) of Act, 1956 contains larger right, which needs determination by a Civil Court, hence for the larger claims as enshrined under Section 20, the proceedings need to be initiated under Section 20 of the Act and the legislature never contemplated to burden the Magistrate while exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to determine the claims contemplated by Act, 1956.
38. We, thus, accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that as a preposition of law, an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married relying on Section 20(3) of the Act, 1956, provided she pleads and proves that she is unable to maintain herself, for enforcement of which right her application/suit has to be under Section 20 of Act, 1956."
13. After going through the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Abhilasha Vs. Prakash and others (supra) it is quite vivid that the application for grant of maintenance moved by the daughters after attaining majority if they are not suffering from any disability or ailment cannot be allowed, and the appropriate recourse for daughters is to move application under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Further, the decision which has been been cited by learned counsel for the respondents wherein it is observed that for educational and other expenses maintenance can be granted, however in the case in hand the daughters/respondents have completed their education, both are graduate and -7- physically fit, therefore, the decision of High Court of Bombay is of no help to the respondents.
14. As a fallout and consequence of above discussion, the order passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur in MJC Case No.87/2019 dated 22-01-2020 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the same is set aside. The respondents are not entitled to get maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. However, they have liberty to move appropriate petition under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Aadil