Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1720 (PNJ)

Gurcharanvir Singh v. Ravneet Kaur

2014-12-11

INDERJIT SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.: - Petitioner Gurcharanvir Singh has filed this petition against Ravneet Kaur under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide which revision petition filed by the respondent against the order dated 21.05.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, has been accepted and an interim maintenance of Rs.3500/- per month has been granted from the date of filing of the application. 2. It is mainly stated in the petition that petitioner was married with Parminder Kaur on 23.09.1990 and two children namely Ravneet Kaur (present respondent) and Harmanpreet Singh were born. Thereafter, due to temperamental differences, petitioner and Parminder Kaur started living separately and they decided to get the marriage dissolved by way of mutual consent. A compromise was got effected with the intervention of relatives and friends. It is further stated in the petition that in view of the compromise, the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3 lacs to Parminder Kaur by way of a demand draft and Rs.1 lac each was to be deposited in the name of both the minor daughter as well as minor son in the shape of FDR in a Nationalized Bank under the guardianship of Parminder Kaur. 3. Notice of motion was issued and learned counsel for the respondent appeared and contested the petition. 4. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued on two points that respondent, though unmarried, has become major and she is not entitled to maintenance. Secondly, the amount of Rs.1 lac has already been deposited in the shape of FDR in a Nationalized Bank. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that mother of respondent cannot take lumpsum maintenance from the husband when the child is minor, which is illegal and secondly, as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the maintenance order of the major daughter till her marriage can be passed and cannot be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, as regarding second argument, has cited judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Jagtawat vs. Manju Lata in SLP (Crl.) 905 of 2001 on 23.04.2002, in which it is held as under:- “2. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, as regarding second argument, has cited judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Jagtawat vs. Manju Lata in SLP (Crl.) 905 of 2001 on 23.04.2002, in which it is held as under:- “2. The petitioner is the father of Kumari Rakhi, Respondent 3 herein, who is a minor unmarried girl. Considering the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by Respondent 1, wife of the petitioner and mother of Respondent 3, claiming maintenance for herself and her two children, the Family Court by order dated 22-7-2000 granted maintenance @ Rs 500 per month to each of the applicants. The petitioner herein filed a revision petition before the High Court assailing the order of the Family Court on the ground, inter alia, that Respondent 3 was entitled to maintenance only till she attains majority and not thereafter. Considering the point the learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the legal position that under Section 125 Cr.P.C, a minor daughter is entitled to maintenance from her parents only till she attains majority, but declined to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court taking the cue from Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act under which the right of maintenance is given to a minor daughter till her marriage. The learned Single Judge was persuaded to maintain the order of the Family Court with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The relevant portion of the judgment of the High Court is quoted here: “Thus, in view of the above, though it cannot be said that the order impugned runs counter to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C are applicable irrespective of the personal law and it does not make any distinction whether the daughter claiming maintenance is a Hindu or a Muslim. However, taking an overall view of the matter, I, with all respect to the Hon’ble Court, am of the candid view that the provisions require literal interpretation and a daughter would cease to have the benefit of the provisions under Section 125 Cr.P.C on attaining majority, though she would be entitled to claim the benefits further under the statute/personal law. However, taking an overall view of the matter, I, with all respect to the Hon’ble Court, am of the candid view that the provisions require literal interpretation and a daughter would cease to have the benefit of the provisions under Section 125 Cr.P.C on attaining majority, though she would be entitled to claim the benefits further under the statute/personal law. But the Court is not inclined to interfere, as the order does not result in miscarriage of justice, rather interfering with the order would create great inconvenience to Respondent 3 as she would be forced to file another petition under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act of 1956 for further maintenance etc. Thus, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigations, the order impugned does not warrant interference.” In view of the finding recorded and the observations made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the order calls for interference. A similar question came up for consideration by this Court in the case of Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim relating to the claim of a Muslim divorced woman for maintenance from her husband for herself and her minor children. This Court while accepting the position that Section 125 Cr.P.C does not fix liability of parents to maintain children beyond attainment of majority, read the said provision and Section 3(1)(b) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act together and held that under the latter statutory provision 3 liability of providing maintenance extends beyond attainment of majority of a dependent girl. Applying the principle to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is manifest that the right of a minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized in Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and 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 Adoptions and 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. 4. 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. 4. Applying the principle to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is manifest that the right of a minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized in Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the judgment/order passed by 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 Adoptions and Maintenance Act. For the reasons aforestated we are of the view that on facts and in the circumstances of the case no interference in the impugned judgment/order of the High Court is called for.” 8. Keeping in the view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that maintenance can be granted to the major unmarried girl and on this ground the impugned order cannot be set aside. 9. Secondly, I find that this is no ground to decline the maintenance that Rs.1 lac in the shape of FDR has been deposited in the name of minor child at the time of taking divorce. The father of the unmarried girl cannot escape the liability to maintain his daughter till she is married by simply stating that at one time he has deposited Rs.1 lac in the shape of FDR. 10. When the FDR was made, at that time the daughter was minor and therefore, in no way, on that ground maintenance order can be set aside. Furthermore, the Court has power to pass interim order of maintenance from the date of application. No special reasons are required to be given if the maintenance is allowed from the date of filing of application. 11. In view of the above discussion, I find that the order dated10.07.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and order dated 21.05.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar are correct and as per law and do not require any interference from this Court. 12. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————