The Kerala High Court Emphasizes That Unmarried Daughters Who Have Reached Majority Cannot Demand Maintenance from Father Under S.125(1) CrPC Based Only on Lack of Means for Livelihood. The Court notes that if an unmarried daughter has a physical or mental disability that prevents her from supporting herself, she may be eligible for maintenance under S.125(1) CrPC, but must provide supporting pleadings and evidence in the matter.
Justice A. Badharudeen Clarifies That Unmarried Hindu Daughters Can Seek Maintenance from Father Under S.20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 Until Marriage, If She Can Show Inability to Support Herself. The Application Must Be Made Specifically Under S.20 of the 1956 Act.
…by virtue of Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C, an unmarried daughter, who attained majority, could not claim maintenance in the ordinary circumstance, viz. merely on the ground that she does not have means for her sustenance. At the same time, even though the unmarried daughter, who attained majority, is entitled for maintenance, where such unmarried daughter is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury is unable to maintain herself, for which, pleadings and evidence in this regard are mandatory. Otherwise, the legal proposition is that an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married resorting to S.20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance 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 S.20 of Act, 1956.
Observation Made During Review of Family Court Order Granting Maintenance to Petitioner’s Wife and Daughter. Court Examines Eligibility of Unmarried Daughter to Claim Maintenance Under S.125(1) CrPC After Attaining Majority.
Counsel for Revision Petitioner Argues Lack of Evidence for Daughter’s Physical/Mental Disability or Inability to Support Herself. Relies on Supreme Court Decision in Abilasha v. Prakash & Ors in Support of Arguments.
Court Examines Evidence, Finds No Proof of Daughter’s (2nd Respondent) Physical/Mental Disability or Inability to Support Herself. Ruling That Grant of Maintenance to 2nd Respondent After Attaining Majority Erroneous, Order Imugned Limited to Maintenance Entitlement Until Majority.
The Court however upheld the maintenance granted the the Revision Petitioner’s wife (1st respondent).
Advocates K. P. Sujesh Kumar and Bijukumar appeared for the Revision Petitioner.
Advocates S. Rajeev, K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan and Public Prosecutor G. Sudheer appeared for the Respondents.
Case Title: Gireesh Kumar N v. Rajani K V and Anr.
