maintenance

Kumar Doab (FIN) 18 May 2018

For the answer to one liner quwery you may carefuly go thru;

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Lubna Mehraj And Ors. vs Mehraj-Ud-Din Kanth on 8 October, 2003

26…"In view of the provisions of Section 7, the Family Court possessed jurisdiction to grant maintenance under Civil Law as well as under Section 125 Cr. P.C. corresponding to Section 488 of J&K Cr. P.C. and, therefore, it appears that their lordships in Jagtawat's case (supra) held that Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, could be applied for granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C.

In fact, the case before the Supreme Court in Noor Saba Kkatoon v. Mohd Quasim (supra) had arisen out of proceedings under Section 125 of the Central Code of Criminal Procedure. So was the case in Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata (supra). In both cases, the provisions contained in the law reflecting the liability of a father under personal law to maintain his major unmarried daughters, were read together with the provisions of Section 125 of the Code.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/857551/

Kumar Doab (FIN) 18 May 2018

And;

Kerala High Court

Muhammed vs Kunhayisha on 19 June, 2003

1. Is a Muslim daughter, notwithstanding the fact that she has attained majority and notwithstanding the fact that she suffers from no physical or mental abnormality or injury, entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.? Does the decision of the. Supreme Court reported in Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim (1997 SCC (CRL) 924), confer on her any such right? These are the questions that fall for determination in this revision petition.

19. The above discussions lead me to the specific and irresistible conclusion that under Section 125Cr.P.C. a major unmarried daughter is not entitled to claim maintenance from her parents unless her inability to maintain herself is attributable to her physical or mental abnormality or injury and that her mere status as an unmarried daughter -whatever be her religion - does not entitle her to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The decisions of the Supreme Court referred above do not also clothe her with any such right. The impugned order therefore deserves revisional interference. The challenge succeeds.

20. In the result

(a) this revision petition is allowed.

(b) the impugned direction to pay maintenance to the counter petitioner/daughter is set aside.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1879693/

Kumar Doab (FIN) 18 May 2018

And;

Patna High Court

Subhash Roy Choudhary vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 14 November, 2003

1. Whether a major unmarried Hindu daughter shall be entitled for maintenance in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the question which falls for determination in the present case under the following circumstances?.

9. The Supreme Court had the occasion to consider this question in the case of Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata and Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 422) in which it has been held as follows:--

"Applying the principle to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is manifest that the right of a major girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized in Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the judgment/order passed by the learned single Judge for maintaining the order passed by the Family Court which is based on a combined reading of Section 125 Cr. P.C. and Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act. For the reasons aforestated We are of the view that on facts and in the circumstances of the case no interference with the impugned judgment/order of the High Court is called for."

10. Thus the principle and the precedent recognise the right of a major unmarried daughter to get maintenance and the same cannot be denied only on the ground that the daughter had attained majority. Hence J answer the question posed at the outset in affirmative and hold that major unmarried daughter is entitled to claim maintenance.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/948898/

Kumar Doab (FIN) 18 May 2018

And;

Patna High Court

Subhash Roy Choudhary vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 14 November, 2003

1. Whether a major unmarried Hindu daughter shall be entitled for maintenance in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the question which falls for determination in the present case under the following circumstances?.

9. The Supreme Court had the occasion to consider this question in the case of Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata and Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 422) in which it has been held as follows:--

"Applying the principle to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is manifest that the right of a major girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized in Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the judgment/order passed by the learned single Judge for maintaining the order passed by the Family Court which is based on a combined reading of Section 125 Cr. P.C. and Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act. For the reasons aforestated We are of the view that on facts and in the circumstances of the case no interference with the impugned judgment/order of the High Court is called for."

10. Thus the principle and the precedent recognise the right of a major unmarried daughter to get maintenance and the same cannot be denied only on the ground that the daughter had attained majority. Hence J answer the question posed at the outset in affirmative and hold that major unmarried daughter is entitled to claim maintenance.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/948898/

Kumar Doab (FIN) 18 May 2018

And;

Bombay High Court

Agnes Lilly Irudaya vs Irudaya Kani Arasan And Anr on 6 April, 2018

1                 The   present   petition   is   filed   by   the   petitioner-mother

claiming maintenance for her major daughter under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the legal issue involved is whether a major daughter is entitled for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Cr.P.C." for short) and another issue which arises out of the present proceedings, whether a mother is competent to file proceedings claiming maintenance on behalf of her major daughter.

The Family Court, however, has cursorily dealt with the application filed by the petitioner wife and has rejected it with a one line reasoning, namely, "Under section 125 of Cr.P.C., the major daughter cannot claim maintenance from her father through her mother. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to claim maintenance for her major daughter under section1 125 of Cr.P.C." The order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid observation and in wp-2872-17.doc 18 wp-2872-17.doc the light of the settled position of law that a major unmarried daughter is entitled for maintenance from her father and since this Court do not find any fault in the application being preferred by the mother claiming only that amount which she requires for meeting the educational expenses and other expenses of the daughter as maintenance amount, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is liable to be set aside. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai is directed to entertain the claim of the petitioner by properly examining the wilful neglect or refusal to maintain the daughter to maintain herself and also the inability of the petitioner to arrange for daughter's maintenance. The impugned order passed by the Family Court is quashed and set aside. Application preferred by the petitioner-wife is remanded back to the Family Court for proper adjudication by applying the parameters for grant of maintenance.