Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Single Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar, set aside an order of maintenance granted under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court directed that the matter be remitted to the Family Court for conversion and consideration under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The directive further mandated that the Family Court decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within six months, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary adjournments. The parties were directed to appear before the Family Court on the specified date, where the application for conversion may be moved, and subsequent adjudication undertaken in accordance with law.

The proceedings arose from an application filed by the daughter of the revisionist under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, claiming maintenance. The application was filed before the Family Court, District Sultanpur, and it was disclosed therein that the applicant was major in age at the time of filing. The Family Court, while considering the application, allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month in terms of Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. This order dated 30.07.2024 became the subject of challenge in revision before the High Court.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Power Generators and Discoms Cannot Privately Fix Tariffs | Section 86 Electricity Act Requires Regulatory Commission’s Approval; KKK Hydro Appeal Dismissed

The revisionist’s counsel argued that under Section 125 CrPC, maintenance is provided only to minor children, and to major children only in cases of physical or mental abnormality or injury. Since the applicant was admittedly major in age and not suffering from such conditions, the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC were not maintainable. It was contended that the Family Court could not have awarded maintenance by invoking Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, in summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhilasha vs. Parkash and others (2021) 13 SCC 99, which was argued to have been wrongly interpreted by the Family Court.

The counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer but conceded that the legal position supported the submission of the revisionist. It was submitted that the impugned order may be set aside, and the matter remitted for adjudication under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, to avoid multiplicity of cases. Both parties expressed consensus that the matter could be decided on the material already placed before the High Court.

The High Court examined the provisions of Section 125 CrPC, observing that only minor children are entitled for maintenance under the section, except major children who are physically or mentally unable to maintain themselves. The Court recorded that the case of the applicant did not fall under these categories. The Family Court had instead considered Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and awarded maintenance. The revisionist challenged this exercise of jurisdiction.

The Court reviewed statutory provisions, including Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which obligates maintenance of an unmarried daughter unable to maintain herself, and Sections 23 and 24 of the Act concerning determination of maintenance and limitations on claims. The Court also referred to the Family Courts Act, 1984, particularly Sections 7, 10, 18, and 19, outlining jurisdiction, procedure, execution of orders, and appeals. It noted that Family Courts exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction in matters of maintenance.

The High Court observed that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature, providing immediate relief, while claims under Section 20 of the 1956 Act involve larger rights requiring determination under civil law. The Court recorded the observations of the Supreme Court in Abhilasha vs. Parkash, noting that “the purpose and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide immediate relief to applicant in summary proceedings, whereas right under Section 20 read with Section 3(b) of Act, 1956 contains larger right, which needs determination by a Civil Court.”

It was further noted that in cases where a daughter becomes major during pendency of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the Family Court may convert and decide under Section 20 of the 1956 Act. However, in the present case, the applicant was already major at the time of filing, and therefore, such conversion had not taken place in accordance with law. The High Court found that the Family Court misinterpreted the law and wrongly allowed maintenance under Section 125 CrPC while relying on provisions of Section 20(3) of the 1956 Act without adopting the required procedure.

The Court stated: “In view of above, only a minor daughter is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. However, a major daughter is entitled for maintenance, who is not married if by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, she is unable to maintain herself. Thus, the case of the respondent no. 2 is not covered under Section 125 CrPC and she was not entitled for order of maintenance under the said section.”

The Court observed: “The Act of 1956 has been enacted to amend and codify the law relating to adoptions and maintenance among Hindus. It has overriding effect under Section 4 of the Act. Chapter 3 of the Act deals with maintenance. Section 20 in Chapter 3 deals with the maintenance of children and aged parents.”

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment, the Court recorded: “The purpose and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as noted above is to provide immediate relief to applicant in a summary proceedings, whereas right under Section 20 read with Section 3(b) of Act, 1956 contains larger right, which needs determination by a Civil Court.”

On jurisdiction of Family Courts, the Court observed: “Thus, both the powers have been conferred upon the Family Courts. However, these are to be exercised under the respective procedural law as provided under Section 10, according to which, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and of any other law for the time being shall apply to the suit(s) and proceedings other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of CrPC before a Family Court and for the said purpose, as per Sub-section (1), a Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have powers of such court.”

The Court further recorded: “Thus, in case during pendency of the application under Section 125 CrPC, a daughter becomes major, the maintenance can be allowed to her invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 1956, but in the present case, the application was filed by the daughter i.e. respondent no. 2 after attaining the age of majority, therefore, it was not a case in which his daughter had become major during pendency of the application and maintenance could have been awarded in the same proceeding.”

On this basis, the Court held: “The Family Court, while deciding the application under Section 125 CrPC in the present case could not have allowed the maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Act of 1956 without considering the relevant factors to be considered and recording finding in regard to those, but the learned Family Court without considering the law as discussed above and misinterpreting the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Abhilasha vs. Parkash and others, allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC and awarded the maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Act of 1956. Thus, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set-aside.”

Also Read: Telangana High Court | ‘Absconding’ Alone No Ground for NBW at Summons Stage | Non-Bailable Warrants a Last Resort Under BNSS

The Court concluded: “In view of above and the consensus among learned counsel for the parties, the revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order 30.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 280 of 2023; Kumari Neha Pandey vs. Anurag Pandey under Section 125 of CrPC by Principal Judge, Family Court, District Sultanpur is hereby set aside.”

The Court directed: “The matter is remitted back to the concerned Family Court, where the parties shall appear on 18.08.2025 on which date an application may be moved by the respondent no. 2 for converting the application under Section 125 CrPC into a suit under Section 20(3) of the Act of 1956 and the Family Court shall consider and pass appropriate order thereon in accordance with law and the observations made herein-above in this order on the same day or within two weeks thereafter and the Family Court shall proceed accordingly and in such case make endeavour to decide the suit expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.”

The Court also recorded its expectation: “It is also expected that the parties shall assist the court in expeditious disposal of the case.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Revisionist: Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate; Ajai Kumar Gupta, Advocate

For the Respondents: G.A., Government Advocate; Rohit Singh Parmar, Advocate

Case Title: Anurag Pandey vs. State of U.P. thru Addl. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC-LKO:46199

Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2025

Bench: Justice Rajnish Kumar