Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 30 (CHH)

KUMARI SHAKUTALA v. MAHESH KUMAR TANDON

2014-01-29

P.SAM KOSHY

body2014
ORDER 1. By way of the instant revision, the applicant has challenged the order dated 9.1.2013 passed in Case No. 55/12 by the Principal Judge, Family Court Camp at Mahasamund whereby the Family Court has rejected the application filed under Section 125(3) Cr. P.C. seeking grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month which the applicant has been getting since her childhood. 2. Facts leading to the instant case are that the applicant has been getting mantenance from the non-applicant right from the stage when she had attained the age of 5 years and since then she has been getting initially an amount of Rs. 300/- per month which has been subsequently enhanced to Rs. 500/- and finally vide order dated 13.7.2011, the said amount has been enhanced to Rs. 700/-. However, the non-applicant stopped paying the maintenance to the applicant w.e.f. 14.2.2012. 3. It was at this juncture, the applicant had moved an application under Section 125(3) Cr. P.C. for a direction from the Family Court for releasing an amount of Rs 4,200/- towards maintenance for the last 6 months. The non-applicant had also entered appearance before the court below. However, the court below, vide impugned order dated 9.1.2013, has held that since there is a specific provision under Section 125(3) Cr. P.C. wherein the proviso to the said section says 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. 4. In the instant case also, since the father has stopped the payment to the daughter on her attaining the majority, the court has vide impugned order held that the non-applicant i.e. the father of the applicant herein was justified in stopping the maintenance amount to the applicant in accordance with the provisions of Section 125(3) Cr. P.C. and the court below has further held that the remedy available to the applicant was to initiate proceeding under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. 4. Though this court had issued notices to the non-applicant on 2.4.2013 and in spite of best efforts and service having been made upon the non-applicant, he has preferred not to make any representation before this court and therefore, this court is left with no other option but to proceed ex parte against the non-applicant. 5. 4. Though this court had issued notices to the non-applicant on 2.4.2013 and in spite of best efforts and service having been made upon the non-applicant, he has preferred not to make any representation before this court and therefore, this court is left with no other option but to proceed ex parte against the non-applicant. 5. During the course of arguments, Shri Bhaduri has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Jagdish Jugtawat vs. Manju Lata and others, (2002) 5 SCC 422 , wherein the Supreme Court in a case where the Family Court itself had passed an order for grant of maintenance to the major daughter on the ground that since she was already getting maintenance, she should not be forced to file another case under Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act which would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The Supreme Court in para 4 of its judgment has held as under:- "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." 6. In the instant case, if we apply the principle so enumerated by the Supreme court in the case cited above, it would be evidently clear that in the present case, the applicant is aged 19 years by now and has been getting maintenance for the last 14 years, i.e. she was getting maintenance from the time when she was 5 years of age and for the last 2 years, she was not getting the same from the non-applicant. The court below was not justified in taking a strict view in this regard and approving the decision of the non-applicant having stopped the payment of maintenance of his daughter only on the ground that she has attained the age of majority and that she should be forced to file another case invoking the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The court below ought to have taken into consideration this aspect and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the court should have entertained the application filed by the applicant for the reason that ultimately the applicant was entitled for maintenance irrespective of the fact whether she moves an application under Section 125(3) Cr. P.C. or under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. 7. For the foregoing reasons and taking into consideration the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Jugtawat vs. Manju Lata and others (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the court below was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 19.1.2013 is set aside. It is ordered that the applicant is entitled for maintenance from the non-applicant and the matter is remitted back to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund for passing appropriate orders in this case. No order as to costs. Revision Allowed.