Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1290 (RAJ)

Anita v. Tarachand @ Jalam Singh

2011-07-05

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 24.3.2008 passed by the Family Court, Jodhpur, whereby the learned Judge has directed that since the petitioner No. 2 has reached the age of majority, therefore, she is disentitled from being paid any maintenance by the respondent father. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 married the respondent according to Hindu rites and customs. However, subsequently differences arose between them and they parted their ways. During the wedlock, two children, namely, petitioner No. 2 Kumari Swati and petitioner No. 3 Mohit were born. It is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that she left the matrimonial home along with her children. Subsequently, she found it extremely difficult to maintain herself as well as the two children. Therefore, in 1999, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent husband for maintenance. Vide order dated 5.7.2000, the learned Court directed that Rs. 500/- should be paid to petitioner No. 1, the wife, and Rs. 500/- should be paid to each child, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Subsequently, in the year 2003, the petitioners moved an application for enhancement of the maintenance amount wherein they claimed that the maintenance amount should be increased upto Rs. 3,000/- per person. However, vide order dated 23.4.2008, the learned Judge directed that since petitioner No. 2 has reached the age of majority, she is disentitled from claiming maintenance. However, the petitioner No. 1 shall be entitled to maintenance of Rs. 1,500 and petitioner No. 3 would be entitled to maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata & Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 422 in order to buttress his contention that although Section 125 Cr.P.C. denies a daughter the right to maintenance from the date she becomes major, but a combined reading of Section 125 Cr.P.C. along with Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act would entitle a daughter to be maintained till the date of her marriage. Therefore, according to the counsel although petitioner No. 2 may have become major, she is also entitled to maintenance from the respondent father. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Therefore, according to the counsel although petitioner No. 2 may have become major, she is also entitled to maintenance from the respondent father. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that both petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2, the wife and the daughter, had filed an appeal, namely, D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1541/2009 before a learned Division Bench of this Court. The said appeal was with regard to an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for seeking maintenance for both the petitioners, the wife and the daughter respectively. Vide order dated 10.3.2010, the learned Division Bench, relying on the case of Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 3397 , had directed the respondent husband/father to pay a maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to both the appellants namely, the wife and the daughter. According to the learned counsel, since the said amount is being paid to petitioner No. 2, who happens to be the daughter, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 5. The learned counsel further contends that petitioner No. 2 is about to get married in November, 2011; therefore, she would be disentitled to claim maintenance from the date of her marriage. Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself lays down that a girl who has reached the age of majority would be dis-entitled from claiming maintenance. 6. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the maintenance being paid under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is an interim maintenance. Therefore, the payment of such maintenance cannot deny the right of the petitioner No. 2 to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, read with Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Moreover, Section 125(1)(c) does provide that a legitimate child who has attained majority would not be entitled to claim maintenance, but under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, such child would be entitled to claim maintenance from father. Moreover, Section 125(1)(c) does provide that a legitimate child who has attained majority would not be entitled to claim maintenance, but under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, such child would be entitled to claim maintenance from father. In order to curtail multiplicity of the litigation, in the case of Jagdish Jugtawat (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that while dealing with an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act should equally be kept in mind. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 8. In the case of Jagdisl Jugtazvat (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that although Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not permit a girl to claim maintenance from her father after reaching the age of majority, but nevertheless the said claim can be filed under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Therefore, in order to prevent the multiplicity of the litigation, the Apex Court was of the opinion that while entertaining a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act should also be kept in mind. Since the girl is entitled to a maintenance till the date of her marriage under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Marriage (sic. Maintenance) Act, ipso facto, she would be equally entitled to payment of a maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The said principle should have been kept in mind by the learned Judge. 9. Keeping in mind the ratio of Jagdish Jugtazvat (supra), this Court is of the view that the petitioner No. 2 would be entitled to a maintenance. This Court directs the respondent father to pay a maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner No. 2. The said amount shall be paid to her from 24.3.2008 onwards till she gets married. The arrears of the maintenance shall be paid in two equal instalments within a period of two months. 10. With these directions, this revision petition is hereby allowed.Revision petition allowed. *******