 |
Aaradhya Gangula |
TITLE
: Abhilasha vs Prakash & Others
COURT
: Supreme Court of India
YEAR
: September
15, 2020
CITATION
: ICL2020(9)SC70 , Criminal Appeal No. 615 of 2020.
Introduction
In the case of Abhilasha vs. Prakash,
an appeal was lodged by a woman against the High Court's decision involving her
husband and the maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC for herself and her
three children—two sons and a daughter. The appellant in this matter is her
youngest daughter, Abhilasha.
The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the
maintenance application for her two sons but approved her daughter's claim, as
Abhilasha was a minor. However, this maintenance was only granted until she
reached the age of majority, according to Section 125CrPC.
Subsequently, the four applicants
sought recourse from the Sessions Court, which upheld that Abhilasha was
entitled to maintenance only until she attained majority. Dissatisfied with
this decision, they approached the High Court, where their application was
again dismissed. Ultimately, they appealed to the Supreme Court, but the appeal
was dismissed there as well.
Issues involved
- Is an unmarried appellant
who has attained majority entitled to maintenance from the respondent
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C?
- Does
the entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C apply to an
appellant who does not suffer from any physical or mental infirmity?
- Can
the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Court
Judge, which limit the appellant's right to claim maintenance until she
attains majority, be set aside?
- Does
the absence of physical or mental infirmity affect the appellant's
entitlement to maintenance from the respondent after she attains majority?
Parties
involved
|
Appellant |
Abhilasha |
|
Respondent |
Prakash and others |
Relevant facts
The mother of the appellant filed an
application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance
for herself and her three children against her husband (respondent no.1). The
Judicial Magistrate dismissed the claim for maintenance for appellant no. 1, 2,
and 3 but approved it for appellant no. 4 until she reached the age of
majority.
All three applicants, dissatisfied with
the decision dated 16.02.2011, sought revision in the Sessions Court. However,
the Additional Sessions Judge rejected their appeal, stating that only children
with a physical or mental abnormality who are unable to maintain themselves are
entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The
judge did modify the order to grant maintenance to the minor daughter until she
reached the age of majority, which was 26-04-2005.
The Additional Sessions Judge clarified
that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., children who have reached the age of majority
are only entitled to maintenance if they suffer from a physical or mental
abnormality that prevents them from maintaining themselves. The court noted
that revisionist No.4 (i.e., the appellant) did not have any such condition, so
she was entitled to maintenance only until 26.04.2005, the date she attained
majority.
The appellants then challenged the
Sessions Judge's order by filing an application before the Punjab and Haryana
High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court
upheld the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. Subsequently, the appellants
took their challenge to the Supreme Court, where their appeal was dismissed.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
The appellant contended in the Supreme Court that,
as she reached majority on April 26, 2005, she is entitled to maintenance from
her father because she is unmarried on the incorrect ground that because the appellant
had reached her majority and was not suffering from any physical or mental
abnormality, she was not entitled to maintenance. The appellant also relied on
section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and contends that
the obligation of a person to keep his unmarried daughter extends till she
marries.
Appellant also relied on Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata & Ors
where High Court accepted the legal position that under section
125Cr.P.C., a minor daughter is entitled to maintenance from her parents only
till she attains majority but declined to interfere with the orders passed by
the family court taking the cue from Sec 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 and observed that provisions require literal
interpretation and also observed that daughter could cease to have the benefit
of the provision under section 125 Cr.P.C. after attaining majority, even
though she would be entitled to claim the benefits further under any law.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The respondent's counsel concurs with
the senior counsel for the appellant that the courts appropriately restricted
the appellant's claim for support until she reached the age of majority on
April 26, 2005. Under Section 125Cr.P.C. A daughter who has attained majority
is entitled to maintenance only if she cannot support herself due to a physical
or mental condition. The Revisional Court found no evidence that the appellant
was unable to maintain herself because of any physical or mental impairment.
Consequently, it is contended that the High Court rightly dismissed the appellant's
plea under Section 482Cr.P.C. as there were no grounds to interfere with the
orders issued by the Judicial Magistrate and the Revisional Court within the
scope of their jurisdiction under Section 482Cr.P.C.
OVERVIEW OF SECTIONS
MENTIONED
Section 125 . Order for maintenance of
wives, children and parents.
Section 488. Order for maintenance of wives and
children.
The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act, 1956
Section 20 – Maintenance of children
and aged parents.
COURTS DECISION
The Supreme Court gave clarification on
the provisions under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,
1956, stating that an unmarried Hindu daughter is eligible to receive
maintenance from her father until she gets married and provided she
demonstrates her inability to support herself.
Similarly, in NaliniRanjan v. Kiran
Rani, the Patna High Court noted that Section 488 of the CrPC, 1898, was meant
to provide a separate remedy.
Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasized
the jurisdictional limits set by the Family Courts Act, 1984. A Magistrate handling
cases under Section 125CrPC cannot adjudicate claims under Section 20 of the
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
In this particular instance, the
application was presented to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewari
District, under the provisions of Section 125CrPC. Since the Magistrate's
jurisdiction under Section 125CrPC do not go with claims under Section 20 of
the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the case was deemed unmaintainable and
therefore subsequently dismissed.
CONCLUSION
The decision in Abhilasha vs. Prakash
deals with the importance of understanding and correctly applying legal
statutes for proper and true outcomes. It highlights the need for proper legal
education and awareness where the law could be refined to better serve
those who intends to protect.
REFERENCES
- The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973,Section
488
- The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, Section
125(1)
- The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956,
Section 20(1)
- The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956,
Section 20(2)
- The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956,
Section 20(3)
- Case Analysis:
Abhilasha v/s Prakash
Aaradhya Gangula
Student, BA LL.B.
Sri Padmavathi Womens University, Tirupati, India