The Bombay High Court has held that the availability of an alternative remedy under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) does not bar a major unmarried daughter from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court observed that maintenance could not be denied to the daughter merely because she could pursue a separate remedy under Section 20(3) of HAMA.

Justice Mehroz K. Pathan was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by a father challenging a Family Court, Nagpur order directing him to pay maintenance of ₹7,000 each to his daughter and son. The father argued that the daughter, who had attained majority, could claim maintenance only under Section 20(3) of HAMA, which permits an unmarried Hindu daughter unable to maintain herself to seek maintenance from her father until marriage. He contended that the Family Court's order granting her maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was liable to be set aside.

The Court held that the mere availability of an alternative remedy under HAMA could not prevent the daughter from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

“… mere availability of such an alternate remedy cannot be a bar to claim a maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., particularly, when the applicant has failed to show that the non-applicant no.2/daughter is able to maintain herself,” the Court remarked.

Relying on Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata & Ors., the Court found no error in the Family Court's decision to continue maintenance to the unmarried major daughter.

“… taking into consideration the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata and others (supra) which is pronounced considering the provisions of Section 20(3) of the HAMA, 1956 there appears to be no error committed by the learned Family Court in granting maintenance even to a unmarried major daughter,” the Court observed.

As regards the son, who had attained majority during the pendency of the revision, the Court held that the father could raise the issue through an application under Section 127 CrPC before the appropriate forum.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the revision petition.

Case Title: Anand Harishchandra Chouhan v. Smt. Shaila [Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2022]