CRM M-3307-2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-3307-2018 (OM)
Date of Decision: 10.05.2018

Kuljas Rai
….Petitioner

Versus

Sunita Sharma and another
….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present: Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).

****

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J

Petitioner has assailed the order granting interim maintenance to

the wife and major daughter.

The petition was not pressed qua the amount allowed to

respondent No.1(wife). The submission is that the major unmarried daughter

was not entitled to maintenance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to ‘Usha and others

Vs. Mahendra Pal Singh and another 2010(70) AcrC 686’, ‘Smt. Saroj and

others Vs. Narender Kumar (CR-3222-2010) decided on 20.11.2012’ and

‘Sushila Bai and another Vs. Bisauharam decided on 01.09.2009’ and

urges that a major daughter, even if unmarried, is not entitled to

maintenance.

While dealing with the question of award of maintenance to an

unmarried daughter after attaining the age of majority, the Apex Court in

1 of 4
20-05-2018 06:20:37 :::
CRM M-3307-2018 -2-

‘Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata and others 2002(6) BCR 189’, dismissed

the S.L.P. filed against the award of maintenance to the major unmarried

daughter under Section 125 of the Code. Paras 3 4 of the said judgment

read thus:-

“3. 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 (supra)
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 CrPC 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 liability of providing maintenance extends beyond
attainment of majority of a dependent girl.

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 the learned Single
Judge for maintaining the order passed by the Family Court
which is based on a combined reading of Section 125 CrPC
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.”

Further, while dealing with same question and the word `injury’

in the matter of ‘Rama Chandra Sahu Vs. Tapaswini Sahu, 2007(4) R.C.R.

(Criminal) 1017′, the Orissa High Court has held that word `injury’ need not

2 of 4
20-05-2018 06:20:38 :::
CRM M-3307-2018 -3-

necessarily denote physical injury and it has to be read in context of inability

to maintain. Therefore, as held in the matters of ‘Noor Suba Khatoon Vs.

Mohd. Quasim, 1997(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 756’ Jagdish (supra),

unmarried daughters are entitled for maintenance even after attainment of

the age of majority till they get married.

Section 125 of the Code in a beneficial legislation to protect the

dependent from vagrancy and destitution. In case of children viz., male till

attainment of the age of majority and in case of female till the marriage, but

if the daughter is unable to maintain herself by reason of any physical or

mental abnormality or injury she is entitled for maintenance till she gets

married even after attainment of majority, however, she is required to prove

the fact that she is unable to maintain herself and her father is having

sufficient means to maintain her. If a minor daughter is unable to maintain

herself till the age of her majority and after attainment of majority she is not

able to maintain herself, then her inability to maintain herself does not cease

automatically and such inability to maintain herself makes her entitled to

maintenance from her parents even after the attainment of her age of

majority.

For the foregoing reasons, unmarried daughter is entitled for

maintenance even after attaining the age of majority till her marriage but she

is required to prove her inability to maintain herself. In the present case, the

Magistrate had allowed only a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to the major

daughter.

Counsel had referred to the statement made by the daughter on

20.09.2017 but that statement was given after the order was passed. There is

an admission that she was working. It is for the trial Court to examine at the

3 of 4
20-05-2018 06:20:38 :::
CRM M-3307-2018 -4-

final stages whether the salary earned by the daughter was enough for her

sustenance. Reference has also made here to ‘Haribhai Shambhubhai

Bhuva Vs. State of Gujarat and others 2015(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 326’ and

‘Amarendra Kumar Paul Vs. Maya Paul, (SC), 2010 CriLJ 395’.

The petition is dismissed in limine.

May 10, 2018 (ANITA CHAUDHRY)
ps-I JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
20-05-2018 06:20:38 :::