Madras High Court
S.James Francis ... Revision vs Silvester Ramani on 1 April, 2022
Crl.R.C(MD)No.481 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.481 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.4256 of 2020
S.James Francis ... Revision Petitioner/Respondent
Vs.
1.Silvester Ramani
2.Minor.Kaviyasindhu ... Respondents/Petitioners
(R – 2 represented through her mother/
first respondent)
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the
records pertaining to the order of the Family Court, Dindigul passed
in M.C.No.39 of 2017, dated 14.07.2020 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu
For Respondents : Mr.V.Sakthivel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.R.C(MD)No.481 of 2020
ORDER
This revision has been filed challenging the order passed in
M.C.No.39 of 2017, dated 14.07.2020, by the Family Court,
Dindigul, thereby ordered maintenance in favour of the second
respondent alone.
2.The first respondent filed a petition before the Family Court,
Dindigul in M.C.No.39 of 2017 claiming maintenance from the
petitioner for the second respondent/minor daughter. The first
respondent alleged that the petitioner treated them with cruelty and
they were driven out from the matrimonial home. The petitioner
neglected them from giving any maintenance though having
sufficient means.
3.On the side of the respondents, the first respondent was
examined as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and on the side of
the petitioner, he himself was examined as R.W.1 and marked
Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.13.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.481 of 2020
4.On a perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Court
below ordered maintenance as against the second respondent and
thereby awarded a sum of Rs.14,000/- payable by the petitioner as
monthly maintenance.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the
materials available on record.
6.On a perusal of the records revealed that the petitioner and
the first respondent gave birth to one son and the second
respondent. The son is living with the petitioner. The petitioner is
working as a Block Development Officer and he is drawing
reasonable salary per month. At the same time, the first respondent
is also working as a Teacher and she is also drawing reasonable
salary. Therefore, the first respondent filed a maintenance case only
for the second respondent, since she is a minor. Now, she attained
majority and the maintenance case was filed only under Section 125
of Cr.P.C. Therefore, till the attainment of majority, she is entitled
for maintenance. After attainment of majority, she is not entitled for
maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.481 of 2020
7.In this regard, it is relevant to cite the Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court of India held in Crl.A.No.615 of 2020
in the case of Abilasha Vs. Parkash and others, in which the
Honourable Supreme Court of India held that the provision of
Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1956) cast clear statutory
obligation on a Hindu to maintain his unmarried daughter who is
unable to maintain herself. The right of unmarried daughter under
Section 20 of the Act, 1956 to claim maintenance from her father
when she is unable to maintain herself is absolute and the right
given to unmarried daughter under Section 20 of the Act, 1956 is
right granted under personal law,which can very well be enforced by
her against her father. The purpose and object of Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. is to provide immediate relief to applicant in a summary
proceedings, whereas right under Section 20 read with Section 3(b)
of the Act, 1956 Act, 1956 contains larger right, which needs
determination by a Civil Court, hence for the larger claims as
enshrined under Section 20 of the Act, 1956 the proceedings need
to be initiated under Section 20 of the Act, 1956 and the legislature
never contemplated to burden the Magistrate while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to determine the claims
contemplated by the Act, 1956.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.481 of 2020
Therefore, the second respondent is not entitled for maintenance
after attainment of her majority.
8.Accordingly, the second respondent is entitled for arrears of
maintenance till her attainment of majority as awarded by the Court
below. It is also made clear that the second respondent is at liberty
to file a appropriate petition for maintenance as against the
petitioner/father under Section 20 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 Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act, 1956.
9. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is
disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
01.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.481 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
To
The Family Court,
Dindigul.
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.481 of 2020
01.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
