HAMA | Major Unmarried Daughter Need Not Show Disability To Claim Maintenance If Unable To Maintain Herself From Own Earnings: MP High Court
Upholding a family court order granting maintenance pendente lite of ₹2,000 to an unmarried adult daughter, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAM Act) clearly states that the daughter needs to show that she is unable to maintain herself with her earnings or other property and does not need to prove any disability....
Upholding a family court order granting maintenance pendente lite of ₹2,000 to an unmarried adult daughter, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAM Act) clearly states that the daughter needs to show that she is unable to maintain herself with her earnings or other property and does not need to prove any disability. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 270]
The bench of Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal observed;
"In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that while seeking maintenance under Section 20(3) of the HAM Act, the major unmarried daughter has to show that she is not in a position to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property and it is not necessary that she should also suffer with some disability".
A criminal revision was filed by a father (petitioner) challenging the order of the Family Court awarding ₹2,000 as maintenance pendente lite to the major unmarried daughter (respondent no 2), but refused to grant maintenance to the wife (respondent no 1) on the grounds that she prima facie does not appear to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner.
The counsel for the father argued that the Section 125 CrPC application seeking maintenance of the major unmarried daughter was not maintainable. It was further argued that she had repeatedly assaulted the father and filed several complaints against him; she was not entitled to maintenance.
The counsel for the father argued that although the major unmarried daughter was entitled to maintenance under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the prerequisite is that she should suffer from some disability.
The counsel for the wife and unmarried adult daughter (respondents no 1 and 2) argued that the impugned order was an interim order awarding monthly maintenance pendente lite to the major unmarried daughter.
The court noted that a joint application under Section 125 CrPC was filed by respondents no. 1 and 2, claiming maintenance on the ground that the father had deserted the major unmarried daughter and his wife, and that they are not in a position to maintain themselves. The court also noted the contention that respondents 1 and 2 were treated with cruelty.
Regarding the application under Section 125 CrPC, the court stated that it is prima facie maintainable only on behalf of the wife and not on behalf of the daughter. The court noted that even if the maintenance is being asked under the wrong provision, the mere mentioning of the wrong provision does not come in the way of justice.
The court held that merely on the ground that the unmarried adult daughter has filed an application under Section 125 CrPC over Section 20(3) of HAM Act, it cannot be said that she is not entitled to any maintenance.
Thus, the court did not find any illegality in the Family Court's order granting maintenance pendente lite to the unmarried adult daughter.
Case Title: Ganga Singh v Devi Singh, CRR No-4968-2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 270
For Petitioner: Advocates Ravendra Kumar Tiwari and Taneyaa Manucha
For Respondents: Advocate Priya Mishra