Major unmarried daughter cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC unless she has mental or physical ailment: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that a major unmarried daughter is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) unless she is suffering from a physical or mental abnormality due to which she cannot maintain herself [Gireesh Kumar N v Rajini KV and another]..Justice A Badharudeen explained that in the absence of such factors, an unmarried daughter who has attained majority cannot ordinarily claim maintenance..“The legal position that emerges is that by virtue of Section 125 (1) of CrPC, an unmarried daughter, who attained majority, could not claim maintenance in the ordinary circumstance, viz. merely on the ground that she does not have means for her sustenance. At the same time, even though the unmarried daughter, who attained majority, is entitled to maintenance, where such an unmarried daughter is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain herself, for which, pleadings and evidence in this regard are mandatory," stated the judgment..The Court, however, noted that a Hindu unmarried daughter can claim maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 if she pleads and proves that she is unable to maintain herself.."Otherwise, the legal proposition is that an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married resorting to S.20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provided, she pleads and proves that she is unable to maintain herself, for enforcement of which right her application/suit has to be under S.20 of Act, 1956,” the order said. .The Court was considering a revision petition moved by a man against a 2016 family court order directing him to pay maintenance of ₹10,000 to his wife and ₹8,000 to his daughter, who was around 17 years in 2016. The counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the family court failed to consider the income of the revision petitioner and that his daughter was a major and, therefore, not entitled to claim maintenance from her father.He also pointed out that in order to sustain a claim of maintenance at the instance of an unmarried daughter, who belongs to the Hindu community, she should file a petition under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956. In a petition filed under Section 125, CrPC, an unmarried daughter, who attained majority, could not claim maintenance, it was argued.The counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that no evidence was produced to indicate that the daughter suffers from any physical or mental abnormality or injury on account of which she could not maintain herself.The Court found substance in the contentions raised by the revision petitioner. As such, it modified the family court order by directing that maintenance should be paid to the daughter only for the period when she remained a minor. On this aspect, the Court noted that the daughter had now crossed 18 years of age and was a major. “On the evaluation of the evidence available in this matter, no evidence let in to show that the 2nd respondent [daughter] has any physical or mental abnormality, or she has any injury so that she could not maintain herself and, therefore, grant maintenance to the 2nd respondent, (who is now aged above 18 years) from the date of attaining majority, is found to be erroneous and thereby the order impugned stands set aside to that extent, limiting entitlement of maintenance by the 2nd respondent till the date she attained majority,” the Court said..The revision petitioner was represented by advocates KP Sujesh Kumar and Biju Kumar. The respondents were represented by advocates S Rajeev, KK Dheerendrakrishnan and G Sudheer..[Read Order]