Maintenance From married daughter

Sh Pranjal,

Thank you for sharing the citation. The Hon'ble SC is so right with her reasoning. I stand educated by your kind sharing of the referred Law point.

Rgds.
 

mr pranjal & mr prabhakar,

thanks a lot for your efforts on the matter.

here putted a quotation from mr hemant  "Similarly,  a  "married non-earning daughter"  CANNOT  claim maintainance from her biological fathers family,  AFTER SHE HAS BEEN MARRIED & Staying in her husband house" - is it correct or not.

I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER A MARRIED WOMEN CAN CLAIM MAINTENANCE FROM HER PERENT OR NOT?

IN CASE OF  YES OR NO - HOW ( PLEASE PUT LEGAL PROVISIONS ) & wHY ( THE LOGIC BEHIND IT ) ?

Sh Arup ji,

I disagree to Sh Hemant's point of view as further quoted by you. Simple reason being "what for her husband is now for" ?.


Now, if hypotheticaly you ask "what if her husband is handicapped then what? Then in that case my opinion is that the married wife should look for a job as per her experience / qualification be it some menial to top position job but she can't be asked to seek maint. from her old parents as she is now a "individual" entity entrusted in care and responsibility of her husband whose duties is to provide for her upkeep.


Further flip hypothetical que. you may ask here what if "husband is incapacited and her parents are having some retirement bank balance then what?" Again my opinion remains the same as stated above.


The logics behind all these hypothetical societal evoloution issues are that the Indian society is always ever accommodating and too societal thinking wise to take care to such evolving issues / situations and behind all these legal tussels of "duties" if a "married daughter" asks her parents "politely" away from  bringing them to legal cause of action then all compasionate issues / grounds could be accommodated by her old retired parents but if legal provisions / authorities are embarked upon then there is no end to such questions and new and new authorities and logics - resonings may crop up in days to come.


But behind all these "innocent thinking", I must say these are some very interesting que. you stirred here :-)


Rgds

thanks a lot mr prabhakar.

Hemant Ji

Similarly,  a  "married non-earning daughter"  CANNOT  claim maintainance from her biological fathers family,  AFTER SHE HAS BEEN MARRIED & Staying in her husband house.

I'm not agree with your above said opinion 

I'll reply soon

Legally can sue for maintenance. But the same can be done under the Maintenance and welfare of PPaernts and Senior Citizens Act

Dear All,  (participating members in particular),
 

If you wish to disagree with my perceptions,  THEN  just simply DO NOT say that   "I disagree".

Without being  "prejudiced"  or "biased",   Please base on your  "disagreement"  with proper reasons / justifications and quote the specific Law  WHICH SAYS      "MARRIED DAUGHTER STAYING IN HUSBANDS HOUSE  IS   "BOUND"   UNDER   SO-AND-SO SECTION OF SO-&-SO ACT,  to provide maintainence to her biological parents".

Please   DO NOT   quote judgements / orders / citations,  which are irrelevant and are usually NOT in line with the wordings / provisions of the Act's.  Such judgements are interpretations at the whims of each judge and does not hold water in another judge's court.  There are scores of judgements  which contradicts each others judgements.  Judgement / orders / citations  ARE NOT THE LAW.

ANOTHER ISSUE :
FURTHER , as I explained earlier :
PLEASE NOTE THE SPECIFIC WORDS :  (which are not out of context)

quote :
Similarly,  a  "married non-earning daughter"  CANNOT  claim maintainance from her biological fathers family,  AFTER SHE HAS BEEN MARRIED & Staying in her husband house.
unquote

IF ANYONE WISHES TO CONTRADICT THE ABOVE STATEMENT,    "THEN"

a)  Please provide the exact section of the exact Act,  where the biological parents  are BOUND BY LAW, to maintain her   "MARRIED daughter who is Staying in her husband house".

AGAIN,  Please  DO NOT  quote judgements / orders / citations,  which are irrelevant and are usually NOT in line with the wordings / provisions of the Act's.  Such judgements are interpretations at the whims of each judge and does not hold water in another judge's court.   There are scores of judgements  which contradicts each others judgements.  Judgement / orders / citations  ARE NOT THE LAW.

NOTE  :  I'm saying  the words   "BOUND BY LAW"    .AND.  I am not saying  "bound by moral laws  or sentiments or emotions or scores of judgement at the judges's  whims/discretion"

FURTHER :
a)  A  "married"   daughter is a seperate entity,  governed by   "Laws  & Rules"   of her husband family laws (which could be a muslim, a parsi, a Hindu  or whatever).   Married daughter is governed by various other laws  and is definetely not governed by the Laws from the side of her biological parents,  DURING THE TENURE OF HER MARRIED LIFE.

b)  A "married" daughter ONLY &  ONLY  retains hierarical rights as a beneficiary over her biological parents property (if appliable).  BESIDES that  nothing.  More so Specifically under the HSAct.

c)  AFTER  marriage of a  "daughter"  all  daughter'ly    "RIGHTS"  remains under suspension, as described in earlier post and subject to various parameters as described in earlier post.

d)  IF it were so, THEN every husband would ask his wife (married daughter)  to claim "maintainance"  from her biological father,  AND this would  NOT  attract  or violate the Dowry Act and neither the DVAct or for that matter any other Act.   It would start a stinking precedent, if the Husband is not earning and every married daughter would legally file for "maintainance" from her biological father.

e)  Of course, the above would be at the cost of  bringing up or depriving off or de-cultivating the other legal male heirs of the biological fathers family.  So to maintain a married daughter  "Life-Long",  the biological father would be legally bound to provide for maintainance. (sic).    As it is, majority of the married daughters always to have the irresistable urge to manipulate and super-impose themselves on the biological fathers family members,  even after the marriage.  A leg in the Husbands house  and another leg in her parents house. (like politicians)

Seems, the HSAct is going to be thrown in the dumps.  
The Law may be an Ass,  BUT the law has yet reached the stage of lunancy.

f)  However all this is possible under the Contract Act,  if there is registered agreement or MOU betwen the married daughters and biological parents, to provide maintainance to either or other  of them.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
 

some of my friends opinion is this that -

when the married daughter getting property of her parents, then she is liable to take responsibility of her parents also.

This is a default RIGHT guaranteed clearly as defined in the HSAct.

quote :

then she is liable to take responsibility of her parents also.

unquote :

A married daughter staying in Husbands house,  cannot be legally compelled to take responsibility of her biological parents.

IF so,  the friends may  please quote the respective section of the respective law.  The HMAct, does not mention the liability or responsibility of the    "Married daughter"  towards her biological father.  SO forget this act.

Anything else,  let us all know,   as requested in my earlier post,  with appropriate reasons to  "disagree on my post".   Do not  "disagree"  just for the sake of "disagreeing",  Please appropriately justify your disagreement with reasons.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

PETITIONER:

DR. (MRS.) VIJAYA MANOHAR ARBAT

            Vs.

RESPONDENT:

KASHI RAO RAJARAM SAWAI AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/02/1987

BENCH:

DUTT, M.M. (J)

OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:

 1987 AIR 1100                          1987 SCR  (2) 331

 1987 SCC  (2) 278        JT 1987 (3)    46

 1987 SCALE  (1)379

Subject

    Code  of  Criminal Procedure, 1973, section  125(1)(d),scope  of-Interpretation  of  the  pronoun   'his'---Whether includes 'her'--Section 2(y) of Criminal Procedure Code read with section 8 of Indian Penal Code and section 13(1) of the General Clauses  Act    Maintenance of father/mother  by  a daughter--Whether  a claim by a father under section  125(1) (d) Criminal Procedure Code maintainable.

 Head Note-

   The  appellant, a medical practitioner at  Kalyan, District  Thane, is the married daughter of Respondent  No.  1, Kashirao Rajaram Sawai, by his first wife, who died in 1948.Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 remarried and he is living with his second wife. He filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Court Kalyan claiming maintenance from the appellant at the rate of Rs.500 per month on the ground that he was unable to maintain himself.     A  preliminary objection raised to the effect,  that  an application under section 125(1)(d) Criminal Procedure  Code by  a father to claim maintenance from his daughter was    not maintainable  was  overruled  by the  Trial  Magistrate  and upheld  by the High Court in revision. Hence the  daughter's appeal by Special leave.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court,     HELD:

   1.1 An application under section 125(1)(d) of  the Code  of  Criminal  Procedure, 1973, by  a  father  claiming maintenance from his married daughter is perfectly maintain able. [337C]

    1.2 Section 125(1)(d) of the Code (a new provision)  has imposed  a  liability on both the son and  the  daughter  to maintain  their father or mother who is unable to  maintain himself or herself. [337F]

    1.3 The object of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code is to provide a summary remedy to save dependents from destitution and vagrancy and thus to serve a social purpose.  There can be no doubt that it is the moral obligation of a son  or a daughter to maintain his or her [332] parents.  It  is not desirable that even though a son  or  a daughter  has  sufficient means, his or  her  parents  would starve. Apart from any law, the Indian Society casts a duty on  the  children of a person to maintain their    parents  if they  are  not in a position to maintain themselves.  It  is also their duty to look after their parents when they become old and infirm. [335B-C]Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, [1975] 2 SCC 386, referred to.

    2.1  It is true that clause (d) has used the  expression 'his  father or mother' but, the use of the word 'his' does not  exclude  the parents claiming  maintenance  from  their daughter. Section 2(y) Criminal Procedure Code provides that words  and expressions used herein and not defined  but            defined in the Indian Penal Code have the meanings respectively  assigned to them in that Code. Section 8 of  the  Indian Penal  Code lays down that the pronoun 'he' and its  derivatives are used for any person whether male or female.  Thus in  view  of section 8 Indian Penal Code read  with  section 2(y)  Criminal Procedure Code, the pronoun 'his'  in  clause(d) of section 125(1) Criminal Procedure Code also indicates a female. Section 13(1) of the General Clauses Act lays down that  in all Central Acts and Regulations, unless  there  is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words  importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include  females.Therefore,  the pronoun 'his' as used in clause (d) of section 125(1) Criminal Procedure Code includes both a male and a  female. In other words, the parents will be entitled  to claim maintenance against their daughter provided,  however,the  other conditions as mentioned in the section  are fulfilled. Before ordering maintenance in favour of a father or a  mother against their married daughter, the court must  be satisfied that the daughter has sufficient means of her  own independently  of  the means or income of her  husband, and that the father or the mother, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself. [335E-H; 336A-B]

    2.2 When the statute provides that the pronoun 'his' not only  denotes a male but also a female, it is not  necessary to  refer to the report of the Joint Committee on  Criminal Procedure Code Bill for the interpretation of clause (d)  of section 125(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The father or  mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, can claim maintenance from their son or daughter. The expression 'his  father or  mother, is not confined only to the father or mother  of the son but also to the father or mother of the daughter. In other  words, the expression 'his father or  mother'  should also be construed as 'her father or mother'. [336H; 337A-B] 333

    2.3 A daughter after her marriage does not cease to be a daughter  of the father or mother. If it is not so,  parents having  no  son but only daughters and unable to  maintain themselves, would go destitute, if the daughters even though they have sufficient means refuse to maintain their parents.[337D-E]

Raj Kumari v. Yashodha Devi, [1978] Cr. L.J. 608, overruled.

    M.      Areera Beevi v. Dr. K.M. Sahib, [1983] Cr. L.J.      412

and Repalli Masthanamma v. Thota Sriramulu, [1982] An. W.R.

393, approved.

JUDGMENT:

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 1986.

    From  the  Judgment and Order dated 11.10. 1985 of  the Bombay High Court in Crl. Revision Appln. No. 167 of 1985.

V.N. Ganpule for the Appellant.

A.M.  Khanwilkar,  A.S. Bhasme and G.B.  Sathe  for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     DUTT, J.

The only point that is involved in this  appeal by special leave is whether the respondent No. 1 is entitled to claim maintenance from the appellant, his married  daughter, under section 125(1)(d) Cr. P.C.

    The appellant Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Arbat, a medical practitioner at Kalyan, District Thane, is the married daughter of the respondent No. 1 Kashirao Rajaram Sawai, by his first wife.  Her mother died in 1948. Thereafter,  the respondent No.  1 remarried and is living with his  second  wife. The respondent  No. 1 filed an application before  the  Judicial Magistrate,  First Court, Kalyan, claiming maintenance from the appellant, his daughter, at the rate of Rs.500 per month on the ground that he was unable to maintain himself.  At the outset, the appellant raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application on the ground that section 125(1)(d) Cr.P.C. does not entitle a father  to claim maintenance from his daughter. The preliminary objection was overruled by the learned Magistrate,and  it was held by him that  the  application was maintainable.  Being aggrieved by the order of the  learned Magistrate,  the  appellant moved the Bombay High  Court  in revision.  The High Court affirmed the order of the  learned Magistrate  and  held that the application of a  father  for maintenance  who is unable to maintain himself is  maintainable  against his married daughter having sufficient  means.In  that  view of the matter the High  Court  dismissed the revisional  application of the appellant. Hence this appeal by special leave.

    Sub-section  (1)  of  section  125    Cr.P.C. provides  as under:-

                  "If any person having sufficient means  neglects or refuses to maintain-

                  (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself or

                 (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor   child,  whether  married          or  not,  unable  to

                  maintain itself, or

                 (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child   (not  being  a married daughter) who  has                                attained  majority,where such  child  is,  by   reason  of any physical or mental abnormality

                  or injury unable to maintain itself, or

             (d)his  father  or mother,  unable  to  maintain himself or herself,

                  a    Magistrate  of the first  class  may, upon proof  of such neglect or refusal, order such  person  to  make a monthly allowance  for  the    maintenance of his wife or such child,  father  or mother, at such monthly rate not  exceeding  five  hundred  rupees in the  whole,  as such

                  Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same  to  such person as the Magistrate may from time to  time direct:

                               Provided that  the  Magistrate  may  order  the  father  of a minor  female  child  referred to in clause (b) to make such  allowance,  until she attains her majority, if         the

                  Magistrate  is satisfied that the  husband  of such  minor female child, if married,  is not  possessed of sufficient means."

    Sub-section  (1)  of section 125 confers  power  on  the Magistrate  of the First Class to order a person to  make  a monthly allowance for the maintenance of some of his close relations like wife,  children, father and mother under certain circumstances. It has been  observed by this Court in Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla  Devi,[1975]2 SCC 386 that the object of section 125 Cr.P.C.  is

to provide a summary remedy to save dependents from destitution and vagrancy and thus to serve a social purpose.

    There can be no doubt that it is the moral obligation of a  son or a daughter to maintain his or her parents.  It is not  desirable that  even though a son or  a  daughter  has sufficient  means,  his or her parents would  starve.  Apart from  any law, the Indian society casts a duty on the  children  of a person to maintain their parents if they are not in a position to maintain themselves. It is also their duty to look after their parents when they become old and infirm.

    The learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the  appellant,  has urged that under clause (d) of section  125(1)  a father is not entitled to claim maintenance from his daughter whether married or not. Our attention has been drawn to the use of the pronoun 'his' in clause (d) and it is submit ted  that the pronoun indicates that it is only the son  who is  burdened  with the obligation to maintain  his  parents.

Counsel  submits that if the legislature had  intended that the  maintenance  can  be claimed by the  parents  from  the daughter as well, it would not have used the pronoun 'his'.

    We are unable to accept this contention. It is true that clause(d) has used the expression "his father   or  mother" but,  in  our opinion, the use of the word  'his'  does not exclude  the parents claiming maintenance from their  daughter.  Section 2(y) Cr.P.C. provides that words     and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Indian Penal  Code have the meanings respectively assigned to them in  that Code. Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that the pronoun 'he' and its derivatives are used for  any person whether male or female. Thus, in view of section 8 IPC  read  with section 2(y) Cr.P.C., the pronoun  'his'  in

clause  (d) of section 125(1) Cr.P.C. also indicates  a            female.  Section13(1) of the General Clauses Act  lays down that  in all Central Acts and Regulations, unless  there  is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words  importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include  females.

Therefore,  the pronoun 'his' as used in clause (d) of section  125(1) Cr.P.C. includes both a male and a female.  In other  words, the parents will be entitled to claim  maintenance  against their daughter provided, however,  the  other conditions as mentioned in the section are fulfilled. Before ordering maintenance in 336 favour of a father or a mother against their married  daughter,  the  court  must be satisfied that  the  daughter    has sufficient  means of her own independently of the  means  or income of her husband, and that the father or the mother, as

the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself. Much reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on a decision of the Kerala High Court in  RajKumari v. Yashodha Devi, [1978] Cr.L.J. 600. In that case it has  been held by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala         High Court, mainly relying upon the report of the Joint Committee on  the Criminal Procedure Code Bill, 1973, that a  daughter is  not liable to maintain her parents who  are  unable  to maintain  themselves.  The Joint Committee in their report made the following recommendations:-

                  "The committee considers that the right of the  parents not possessed of sufficient means,  to be  maintained by their son should  be  recognized  by   making a provision that  where         the father or mother is unable to maintain himself  or herself an order for payment of maintenance  may  be directed to a son who is possessed  of  sufficient  means.  If there are two  or more children the  parents  may  seek  the  remedy  against  any  one or more of  them"  (Emphasis  supplied).

    The learned Judge of the Kerala High Court did not refer in  his judgment to the sentence which has been  underlined.

It  is true that in the first part of the report  the word 'son'  has been used, but in the latter part which has been underlined  the recommendation is that if there are  two  or more  children the parents may seek the remedy against any one  or  more of them. If the recommendation of the  Joint Committee  was that the liability to maintain  the  parents, unable to maintain themselves, would be on the son only,  in that  case,  in the latter portion of the report  the  Joint Committee  would  not have used the  word  'children'  which admittedly  includes sons and daughters. In our opinion,  as we read the report of the Joint Committee, it did not  place the  burden of maintaining the parents only on the son,       but recommended  that  the liability to  maintain the  parents should            be  of the sons and the daughters as well.  We have referred  to the report of the Joint Committee inasmuch  as the  same has been relied upon in Raj Kumari's case  (supra) by the Kerala High Court and also on behalf of the appellant in  the            instant case. When the statute  provides  that  the pronoun 'his' not only denotes a male but also a female,  we do  not  think it necessary to refer to the  report  of  the Joint Committee for the 337

interpretation of clause (d) of section 125(1) Cr.P.C.            The father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, can claim maintenance from their son or daughter. The expression "his father or mother" is not confined only to the father or mother of the son but also to the father or mother  of           the daughter.  In  other words, the expression  "his  father  or mother" should also be construed as "her father or mother".

    In     M.  Areera Beevi v. Dr. K.M. Sahib,  [1983]  Cr.L.J.412,  and  Repalli Masthanamma v.  Thota  Sriramulu,  [1982]An.W.R. 393,

another Single Bench of the Kerala High  Court and  the Andhra Pradesh High Court have            respectively  taken the  view that the parents who are unable to maintain  themselves can claim maintenance also from their daughters under section 125(1)(d) Cr.P.C.

    We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that  a married daughter has no obligation to  maintain  her parents     even if they are unable to maintain themselves.  It has been rightly pointed out by the High Court that a daughter  after her marriage does not cease to be a daughter  of the father or mother. It has been earlier noticed that it is the  moral  obligation of the children  to  maintain  their parents.  In case the contention of the appellant  that  the daughter has no liability whatsoever to maintain her parents is  accepted, in that case, parents having no son  but only daughters and unable to maintain themselves, would go destitute,  if  the daughters even though  they  have  sufficient means refuse to maintain their parents.

    After giving our best consideration to the question, we are of the view that section 125(1)(d) has imposed a liability  on  both  the son and the daughter  to  maintain  their father or mother who is unable to maintain himself or         herself. Section 488 of the old Criminal Procedure Code did not contain  a provision like clause (d) of section 125(1). The legislature  in  enacting  Criminal  Procedure   Code,   1973 thought  it wise to provide for the maintenance of the    parents  of a person when such parents are unable  to  maintain themselves.  The  purpose of such enactment  is  to  enforce social        obligation  and  we do not think  why  the  daughter should be excluded from such obligation to  maintain  their parents.

    The  judgment of the High Court is affirmed and this appeal is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

338

    The learned Magistrate will now dispose of the application  under section 125(1)(d) Cr.P.C. of the  respondent  on merits in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have

not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

S.R.                                                                  Appeal dismissed.

339