A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Abhilasha v. Parkash & Ors. authoritatively settles the legal position concerning the entitlement of an unmarried Hindu daughter to claim maintenance from her father after attaining majority. The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and clarified the distinct scope, nature, and jurisdictional limits of these two provisions. The Court held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides a summary and immediate remedy confined to minor children, with an exception only in cases where a major child suffers from physical or mental abnormality or injury rendering her unable to maintain herself. In contrast, Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 recognises a broader and substantive personal law right of an unmarried Hindu daughter to seek maintenance till marriage, subject to proof of inability to maintain herself.

The Court decisively ruled that such a substantive right under Section 20 cannot be enforced through proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., except where jurisdiction is exercised by a Family Court competent to adjudicate under both statutes. The Magistrate, exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C., cannot grant maintenance to a major unmarried daughter merely on the basis of personal law obligations. The decision harmonises earlier precedents including Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata and Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal, and resolves prevailing ambiguities regarding overlapping remedies. The judgment preserves the legislative intent behind summary criminal remedies while safeguarding substantive personal law rights through appropriate civil proceedings.

Keywords: Maintenance, Unmarried Daughter, Section 125 Cr.P.C., Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, Family Court Jurisdiction

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose from a long-standing legal conflict concerning the limits of maintenance jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly when juxtaposed with personal law obligations under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The appellant, an unmarried Hindu daughter, sought continuation of maintenance from her father after attaining majority, despite absence of any physical or mental disability.

The judicial journey commenced with an application filed by the appellant’s mother under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and her children. While the Magistrate granted maintenance to the appellant only until she attained majority, subsequent revisional and inherent jurisdiction challenges failed. The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that personal law obligations under Section 20(3) entitled her to maintenance until marriage.

The background reflects a recurring conflict in Indian family jurisprudence where summary criminal remedies intersect with substantive civil rights. Earlier decisions such as Jagdish Jugtawat had seemingly blurred these boundaries, prompting inconsistent interpretations by subordinate courts. The present judgment thus became necessary to delineate the precise contours of each statutory remedy, clarify jurisdictional competence, and prevent misuse of summary criminal proceedings for enforcing expansive civil claims.

The Court also examined historical evolution from Section 488 Cr.P.C., 1898 to Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973, reaffirming the welfare-oriented but limited nature of criminal maintenance provisions. The background underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing social justice objectives with legislative intent and procedural discipline.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant was born on 26 April 1987. In October 2002, while she was still a minor, her mother filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on behalf of herself and her children, including the appellant, seeking maintenance from the respondent-father. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewari, by order dated 16 February 2011, rejected the claims of the mother and other siblings but allowed maintenance to the appellant only until she attained majority.

Aggrieved, a criminal revision was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari. By order dated 17 February 2014, the revisional court affirmed the Magistrate’s findings and clarified that the appellant’s entitlement ceased on 26 April 2005, when she attained majority, noting that she suffered from no physical or mental abnormality as required under Section 125(1)(c) Cr.P.C.

The appellant then invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which dismissed the petition, holding that no illegality or perversity existed in the lower court orders. The High Court reiterated that maintenance beyond majority under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is permissible only in cases of disability.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 conferred an independent right on an unmarried daughter to claim maintenance until marriage. The respondent countered that such a right could not be enforced in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Additional factual aspects included the appellant’s admission regarding ownership and sale of immovable property, and prior withdrawal of a civil suit under Section 20 of the Act, 1956, which materially influenced the Court’s assessment of entitlement and procedural propriety.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether an unmarried Hindu daughter who has attained majority can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the absence of physical or mental abnormality?

ii. Whether personal law rights under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 can be enforced through proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?

iii. Whether a Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can grant maintenance to a major unmarried daughter based on personal law obligations?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant submitted that the obligation of a Hindu father to maintain his unmarried daughter extends till her marriage as recognised under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It was argued that the High Court erred in restricting maintenance merely due to attainment of majority. Reliance was placed on Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata, asserting that courts may harmoniously apply Section 125 Cr.P.C. with personal law to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It was further contended that unemployment constituted inability to maintain oneself within the meaning of Section 20.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent submitted that Section 125 Cr.P.C. clearly limits maintenance to minor children, except in cases of disability. The appellant admittedly suffered from no physical or mental abnormality. It was contended that personal law rights under Section 20 must be enforced through appropriate civil proceedings and not through criminal summary jurisdiction. The respondent emphasised legislative intent and jurisdictional discipline.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
ii. Section 20 and Section 3(b), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
iii. Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
iv. Family Courts Act, 1984

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal while clarifying the legal position. The Court held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides a limited, summary remedy intended to prevent destitution and starvation. Maintenance to a major unmarried daughter under this provision is permissible only when disability is established.

The Court recognised that Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 grants a substantive and absolute personal law right to an unmarried daughter to seek maintenance till marriage, subject to proof of inability to maintain herself. However, enforcement of this right lies exclusively through proceedings under Section 20 before a competent civil or family court.

The Court distinguished Jagdish Jugtawat, clarifying that it does not lay down a ratio permitting Magistrates under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to enforce Section 20 rights. It further held that only a Family Court, where vested with dual jurisdiction, may consolidate such claims to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio decidendi is that Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be expanded to enforce substantive personal law rights under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Maintenance to a major unmarried daughter without disability must be claimed through civil proceedings under Section 20, and Magistrates lack jurisdiction to grant such relief under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that Hindu and Muslim personal laws historically recognise parental obligation to maintain unmarried daughters. It also noted that Family Courts can, in appropriate cases, adjudicate claims under both statutes to prevent procedural fragmentation.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is confined to statutory limits.
ii. Personal law rights under Section 20 must be enforced independently.
iii. Family Courts may exercise composite jurisdiction where statutorily empowered.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces statutory discipline and doctrinal clarity. It preserves the welfare intent of Section 125 Cr.P.C. while preventing its misuse as a substitute for civil adjudication. By demarcating jurisdictions, the Court ensures procedural efficiency and doctrinal coherence in family law litigation. The decision provides authoritative guidance for courts, practitioners, and litigants dealing with maintenance claims of major unmarried daughters under Hindu law.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

• Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal, [1970] 1 SCR 565

• Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata, (2002) 5 SCC 422

• Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim, (1997) 6 SCC 182

• Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

• Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

• Family Courts Act, 1984