Recently, the Allahabad High Court dealt with the scope of jurisdiction of Family Courts in maintenance matters, holding that while Family Courts exercise powers both under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, maintenance to a major unmarried daughter cannot be granted under Section 125 CrPC alone. The Court observed that such claims must be tested under Section 20(3) of the 1956 Act, applying proper civil procedure and evidentiary standards, and not on the basis of summary proceedings.
The dispute arose when a daughter filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court seeking maintenance from her father even after attaining majority. The Family Court allowed the claim by invoking Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, without converting the proceedings into a civil suit. Aggrieved by this, the father challenged the order before the High Court.
The counsel argued that the Family Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by granting maintenance under Section 20(3) of the 1956 Act in summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, without following the due procedure prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code. It was further submitted that the Family Court misinterpreted the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Abhilasha v. Parkash & Ors., which had drawn a clear distinction between immediate relief under Section 125 CrPC and larger rights under Section 20 of the 1956 Act.
The Court examined Sections 7, 10, 18 and 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and noted that Family Courts exercise dual jurisdiction—both civil and criminal, depending on whether the proceedings arise under CrPC or under civil law. Referring to Abhilasha v. Parkash, the Court reiterated, “The purpose and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide immediate relief to an applicant in summary proceedings, whereas the right under Section 20 read with Section 3(b) of the Act, 1956 contains a larger right, which needs determination by a Civil Court.”
The Court held that although Family Courts can grant maintenance to a major unmarried daughter under Section 20 of the 1956 Act, such relief must be adjudicated following civil procedure and not through summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. It further emphasized that applications under Section 125 CrPC can, however, be converted into suits under Section 20(3) to avoid multiplicity of litigation, provided proper procedure is followed.
Setting aside the Family Court’s order, the High Court remitted the matter back to the concerned Family Court with directions to allow the daughter to seek conversion of her application under Section 125 CrPC into a suit under Section 20(3) of the 1956 Act. The Court directed that the matter be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within six months, while ensuring that due process is followed.
Case Title: Anurag Pandey Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Princ. Secy. Home Lko. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Revisio No. - 13 Of 2025
Coram: Justice Rajnish Kumar
Advocate for Revisionist: Adv. Amit Kumar Singh, Ajai Kumar Gupta
Advocate for Respondent: G.A., Rohit Singh Parmar
Picture Source :
