Rs 7,000 a month each for a daughter and a son stays in place, and a separate remedy under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act does not bar a major unmarried daughter from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, the Bombay High Court has held in dismissing a father’s revision.
Nagpur: Dismissing a schoolteacher’s challenge to a Family Court order that made him pay Rs 7,000 a month each to his daughter and son, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that the availability of a remedy under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) is no bar to a claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [Anand Harishchandra Chouhan v. Smt. Shaila and Others].
Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2022 was decided by Justice Mehroz K. Pathan, who reserved judgment on October 7, 2026 and pronounced it on October 13, 2026. Siddharth M. Lodha appeared for the father, and S.A. Sahu for the mother and the two children.
The Court on the daughter’s claim
Justice Pathan held that an alternative remedy under HAMA does not close the door on Section 125 CrPC, particularly where the father had not shown that the daughter could support herself:
“However, mere availability of such an alternate remedy cannot be a bar to claim a maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., particularly, when the applicant has failed to show that the non-applicant no.2/daughter is able to maintain herself.”
The Court drew support from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata (2002) 5 SCC 422. There, the Supreme Court declined to disturb a maintenance order for a daughter beyond majority that rested on a combined reading of Section 125 CrPC and Section 20(3) of HAMA, avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. Applying it, the High Court concluded:
“there appears to be no error committed by the learned Family Court in granting maintenance even to a unmarried major daughter.”
From the Family Court to a revision
The mother, a teacher, had filed the maintenance petition (Petition No. E-130 of 2014) before the Family Court at Nagpur for herself and the two children. In its judgment of December 7, 2019, the Family Court declined maintenance to her, noting that she earns Rs 40,000 a month, but granted Rs 7,000 a month to each child, taking into account that the father earns Rs 71,000 a month. According to the respondents’ submissions, the proceedings had been pending since 2016.
The father took the order to the High Court in revision in 2022. By then the daughter was a major, aged 23 when the revision was filed, and the son attained majority while it was pending. The father said he also has to maintain his aged parents and that the mother, being a teacher, could bear the children’s expenses.
What the father argued
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Abhilasha v. Parkash (2021) 13 SCC 99, the father argued that a major unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till her marriage only under Section 20(3) of HAMA, and only if she pleads and proves that she cannot maintain herself. His case was that Section 125 CrPC is a speedy, summary remedy distinct from HAMA, that the daughter had an alternative remedy under HAMA, and that Section 125 CrPC protects only minor children.
The answer from the mother’s side
For the mother and children, it was argued that the petition was maintainable under Section 125 CrPC and that reliance on Abhilasha was misconceived. Counsel cited this High Court’s decision in Murlidhar Krushnarao Virulkar v. Ku. Neha (2024 SCC Online Bom 3706), where it was observed to be rather harsh to ask a daughter to start afresh under HAMA after about nine years. It was also submitted that, on the date of the Family Court’s judgment, the son was a minor, and that Section 125 CrPC carries a standing condition that the person claiming be unable to maintain himself or herself.
The son, and a later remedy
On the son, the Court noted it was an admitted fact that he was a minor when the Family Court passed its judgment, so the order could not be faulted because he later became a major. His grievance that he has since attained majority, the Court said, can be raised in an application under Section 127 CrPC before the appropriate forum. The Court also referred to a Delhi High Court observation that a father’s obligation does not end when a son turns 18 if he is still studying and cannot sustain himself.
Finding the award of Rs 7,000 each to the two children not erroneous, the Court dismissed the revision and disposed of the matter.
What the ruling means for unmarried adult daughters
Section 125 CrPC, the provision carried into Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, is a summary remedy meant for quick relief, and it speaks of children who cannot maintain themselves. The Bombay High Court’s reading keeps that remedy usable for an unmarried daughter who has crossed 18 but still depends on her parents, rather than forcing her to begin fresh proceedings under HAMA years after the first petition was filed.
The ruling is a single-judge decision on the facts of this case. Whether a daughter can actually prove she is unable to maintain herself remains a question of evidence in each case, and the burden on that point was held to lie on the father here only because he had not shown she was self-supporting.
Case Title: Anand Harishchandra Chouhan v. Smt. Shaila and Others [Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2022]
Bench: Justice Mehroz K. Pathan, Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2026
Appearances: Siddharth M. Lodha, Advocate, for the applicant; S.A. Sahu, Advocate, for the non-applicants