ABHILASHAversusPARKASH & ORS.

244                      [2020]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   11 S.C.R. 244               [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A                               ABHILASHA
                                       v.
                             PARKASH & ORS.
                       (Criminal Appeal No. 615 of 2020)
B                           SEPTEMBER 15, 2020
             [ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
                        M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
             Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.125 – Whether a Hindu
      unmarried daughter is entitled to claim maintenance from her father
C
      under s.125 Cr.P.C. only till she attains majority or she can claim
      maintenance till she remains unmarried – Held: The Scheme under
      s.125(1) Cr.P.C. contemplate that claim of maintenance by an
      unmarried daughter, who has attained majority is admissible only
      when by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury,
D     she is unable to maintain herself – However, an unmarried Hindu
      daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married
      in terms of s.20(3) of the 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 s.20 of Act, 1956 – Hindu
      Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – s.20 – Code of Criminal
E
      Procedure, 1898 – s.488.
            Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.125 – Nature, extent
      and scope of – Discussed.
            Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.125 – Hindu Adoptions
F     and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Distinction between – Held: The
      purpose and object of s.125 is to provide immediate relief to
      applicant in a summary proceedings, whereas right under s.20 read
      with s.3(b) of Act, 1956 contains larger right, which needs
      determination by a Civil Court, hence for the larger claims as
      enshrined under s.20, the proceedings need to be initiated under
G     s.20 of the Act and the legislature never contemplated to burden the
      Magistrate while exercising jurisdiction under s.125 Cr.P.C. to
      determine the claims contemplated by Act, 1956.
            Family Courts Act, 1984: Jurisdiction of Family Court – Family
      Courts shall have the jurisdiction only with respect to city or town
H
                                      244
               ABHILASHA v. PARKASH & ORS.                               245


whose population exceeds one million and where there is no Family        A
Courts, proceedings under s.125 Cr.P.C. shall have to be before
the Magistrate of the First Class – In an area where the Family
Court is not established, a suit or proceedings for maintenance
including the proceedings under s.20 of the Act, 1956 shall only be
before the District Court or any subordinate Civil Court – There
                                                                         B
may be a case where the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide a
case under s.125 Cr.P.C. as well as the suit under s.20 of Act, 1956,
in such eventuality, Family Court can exercise jurisdiction under
both the Acts and in an appropriate case can grant maintenance to
unmarried daughter even though she has become major enforcing
her right under s.20 of Act, 1956 so as to avoid multiplicity of         C
proceedings – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – s.20
– Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125.
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1. A bare perusal of Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. as well         D
as Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
indicates that Section 125 Cr.P.C. limits the claim of maintenance
of a child until he or she attains majority. By virtue of Section
125(1)(c), an unmarried daughter even though she has attained
majority is entitled for maintenance, where such unmarried
daughter is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or           E
injury is unable to maintain itself. In the present case, the
Revisional Court returned a finding that appellant is not suffering
from any physical or mental abnormality or injury due to which
she is unable to maintain herself. The above findings are not
even questioned before this court. What is contended that even           F
if she is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or
injury, by virtue of Section 20 of Act, 1956, she is entitled to claim
maintenance till she is unmarried. [Para 12][253-B-E]
       2. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 488
was the provision governing the maintenance of wife or legitimate        G
or illegitimate child of any person. Section 488 sought to inhibit
negligence of woman and children with intent to serve a social
purpose. The provision provided for summary proceeding to


                                                                         H
246            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A     enable a deserted wife or helpless child, legitimate or illegitimate,
      to get urgent relief. The laws are nothing but collective
      consciousness of community. It is in the interest of the community
      and social order that woman and child who are neglected be
      maintained and should be provided a forum to obtain urgent relief
      to enable them to sustain. [Paras 13, 14][253-F; 254-A-B]
B
            Mulla – Hindu Law 22nd Edition – referred to.
            3. Section 20(3) of the Act, 1956 is nothing but recognition
      of principles of Hindu Law regarding maintenance of children and
      aged parents. Section 20(3) now makes it statutory obligation of
C     a Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and is
      unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other
      property. The right of unmarried daughter under Section 20 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 is right granted under personal law, which can
D
      very well be enforced by her against her father. [Paras 27, 31]
      [262-E-F; 264-C-D]
            Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim (1997) 6 SCC
            233 : [1997] 6 SCC 182 – relied on.
E           4. After enactment of Family Courts Act, 1984, a Family
      Court shall also have the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate
      of the First Class under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. relating to order
      for maintenance of wife, children and parents. Family Courts shall
      have the jurisdiction only with respect to city or town whose
      population exceeds one million, where there is no Family Courts,
F     proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall have to be before
      the Magistrate of the First Class. In an area where the Family
      Court is not established, a suit or proceedings for maintenance
      including the proceedings under Section 20 of the Act, 1956 shall
      only be before the District Court or any subordinate Civil Court.
G     There may be a case where the Family Court has jurisdiction to
      decide a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as the suit under
      Section 20 of Act, 1956, in such eventuality, Family Court can
      exercise jurisdiction under both the Acts and in an appropriate
      case can grant maintenance to unmarried daughter even though

H
               ABHILASHA v. PARKASH & ORS.                              247


she has become major enforcing her right under Section 20 of            A
Act, 1956 so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. However
the Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
cannot pass such order. [Paras 32, 33][264-E-H; 265-A]
      Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata and Others (2002) 5
      SCC 422 – relied on.                                              B
       5. The maintenance as contemplated under Act, 1956 is a
larger concept as compared to concept of maintenance under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. Section 3(b) while defining maintenance gives
an inclusive definition including marriage expenses. The purpose
and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide immediate relief        C
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, hence for the
larger claims as enshrined under Section 20, the proceedings need
to be initiated under Section 20 of the Act and the legislature
never contemplated to burden the Magistrate while exercising            D
jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to determine the claims
contemplated by Act, 1956. [Paras 35, 36][265-D, G]
      6. An unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance
from her father till she is married relying on Section 20(3) of the
Act, 1956, provided she pleads and proves that she is unable to         E
maintain herself, for enforcement of which right her application/
suit has to be under Section 20 of Act, 1956. In facts of the present
case the ends of justice be served by giving liberty to the appellant
to take recourse to Section 20(3) of the Act, 1956, if so advised,
for claiming any maintenance against her father. [Paras 38, 39]         F
[267-B, C-D]
      Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal and Others
      (1969) 3 SCC 802 : [1970] 1 SCR 565; Ram Singh v.
      State AIR 1963 All 355; Nalini Ranjan v. Kiran Rani
      AIR 1965 Pat. 442; Mahabir Agarwalla v. Gita Roy                  G
      [1962] 2 Cr. L.J.528; Mst. Zohara Khatoon v. Mohd.
      Ibrahim (1981) 2 SCC 509 : [1981] 2 SCR 910;
      Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav


                                                                        H
248              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A             and Another (1988) 1 SCC 530; Kirtikant D. Vadodaria
              v. State of Gujarat and Another (1996) 4 SCC 479 :
              [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 45; State of Haryana and Others
              v. Santra (Smt.) (2000) 5 SCC 182 : [2000] 3 SCR 195–
              referred to.
B                               Case Law Reference
      (2002) 5 SCC 422                relied on                  Para 15
      [1970] 1 SCR 565                referred to                Para 15
      [1981] 2 SCR 910                referred to                Para 17
C     (1988) 1 SCC 530                referred to                Para 18
      [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 45          referred to                Para 20
      [2000] 3 SCR 195                referred to                Para 26
      [1997] 6 SCC 182                relied on                  Para 29
D           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      615 of 2020.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 16.08.2018 of the High Court
      of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-16328 of 2014 (O&M).

E            Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Aditya Singh, Shubham Singh,
      Ajay Ravish, Deepkaran Dalal and Karan Dalal, Advs., for the appearing
      parties.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
F
              1. Leave granted.
            2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, daughter of
      respondent Nos. 1 and 2, challenging the order of the High Court of
      Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16.08.2018 by which order
      the High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed
G     by the appellant praying for setting aside the order of the Judicial
      Magistrate First Class, Rewari dated 16.02.2011 as well as the order
      dated 17.02.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari.
              3. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding this appeal
      are:-
H
          ABHILASHA v. PARKASH & ORS.                                    249
              [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

3.1 The respondent No.2, mother of the appellant, on her behalf,         A
    as well as on behalf of her two sons and the appellant daughter,
    filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her
    husband, the respondent No.1, Parkash, claiming maintenance
    for herself and her three children. The learned Judicial
    Magistrate vide its judgment dated 16.02.2011 dismissed the
                                                                         B
    application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of the applicant Nos. 1,
    2 and 3 and allowed the same for applicant No.4 (appellant
    before us) for grant of maintenance till she attains majority.
3.2 Aggrieved against the judgment dated 16.02.2011, all the four
    applicants filed a criminal revision before the Court of Sessions
    Judge, which criminal revision was dismissed by learned              C
    Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 17.02.2014 with the
    only modification that revisionist No.4 (appellant before us)
    shall be entitled to maintenance till 26.04.2005 when she attains
    majority. Learned Additional Sessions Judge held that as per
    provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C., the children, who had attained     D
    majority are entitled to maintenance, if by reason of any
    physical or mental abnormality or injury, they are unable to
    maintain themselves. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also
    held that the revisionist No.4 (i.e. appellant) is not suffering
    from any physical, mental abnormality or injury, therefore,
    she is entitled to maintenance only till 26.04.2005 i.e., till she   E
    attains majority.
3.3 Challenging the order of Sessions Judge as well as the Judicial
    Magistrate, an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed
    before the High court by all the applicants including the
    appellant. High Court by the impugned judgment dated                 F
    16.02.2018 dismissed the application filed under Section 482
    Cr.P.C. by making following observations:-
          “Both the Courts are consistent with regard to declining
   maintenance to petitioners No. 1 to 3. As regards grant of
   maintenance to Abhilasha by the trial Court, the order regarding      G
   it was modified by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari
   observing that she was entitled to get maintenance till attaining
   majority and not thereafter since she is not suffering from any
   physical or mental abnormality or injury, in those eventualities
                                                                         H
250             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A               a child, who though has attained majority but is unable to
                maintain itself is entitled to get maintenance.
                       I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment
                passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, which
                might have called for interference by this Court while exercising
B               jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
                       Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.”
            3.4 This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the
                High Court.

C            4. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel appearing for
      the appellant submits that even though the appellant had attained majority
      on 26.04.2005 but since she is unmarried, she is entitled to claim
      maintenance from her father. Learned senior counsel contends that High
      Court committed error in dismissing the application filed under Section
      482 Cr.P.C. of the appellant on wrong premise that since appellant has
D     attained majority and is not suffering from any physical or mental
      abnormality, she is not entitled for any maintenance. Ms. Makhija has
      relied on provisions of Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance
      Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1956”) and submits that as
      per Section 20 obligation of a person to maintain his daughter, who is
E     unmarried, extends till she is married. Ms. Makhija relies on judgment of
      this Court in Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata and Others, (2002)
      5 SCC 422 in support of her submission. She submits that High Court
      committed error in taking a contrary view to the above judgment of this
      Court. Ms. Makhija submits that appellant is still unemployed, hence,
      she is entitled to claim maintenance from her father.
F
             5. Learned counsel for the respondent refuting the submission of
      the learned senior counsel for the appellant contends that Courts below
      have rightly confined the claim of the maintenance of the appellant till
      she attains majority on 26.04.2005. It is submitted that as per Section
      125 Cr.P.C. entitlement to claim maintenance by daughter, who has
G     attained majority is confined to case where the person by reason of any
      physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain herself.
      Revisional Court has returned a finding that there is no case that appellant
      is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury is unable to
      maintain herself. It is submitted that High Court has rightly dismissed
      the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the appellant since no
H
                 ABHILASHA v. PARKASH & ORS.                                   251
                     [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

case was made out to interfere in orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate     A
and learned Revisional Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C.
      6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the records.
      7. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,          B
following two questions arise for consideration in this appeal:-
      (i) Whether the appellant, who although had attained majority
          and is still unmarried is entitled to claim maintenance from
          her father in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. although
          she is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality/        C
          injury?
      (ii) Whether the orders passed by learned Judicial Magistrate as
           well as learned Revisional Court limiting the claim of the
           appellant to claim maintenance till she attains majority on
           26.04.2005 deserves to be set aside with direction to the           D
           respondent No.1 to continue to give maintenance even after
           26.04.2005 till the appellant remains unmarried?
       8. Both the questions being interconnected, we proceed to take
them together. Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on
17.10.2002 by the applicants including the appellant as applicant No.4         E
against Parkash, father of the appellant. The date of birth of the appellant
being 26.04.1987, she was minor at the time when the application was
filed. Learned Judicial Magistrate allowed the application of the appellant
for maintenance till she attains majority. Learned Revisional Court has
also affirmed the judgment with modification that appellant was entitled       F
to receive maintenance till 26.04.2005 instead of 07.02.2005, which is
date when she attains majority. In support of application under Section
125 Cr.P.C., applicant had examined Surya Dev Pandey as PW1, Chunni
Lal Saini as PW2, Vikas Saini as PW3 and Dr. Raj Saini as PW4. The
claim of the applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was rejected, which was also
affirmed by Courts below and is not subject matter of this appeal.             G
       9. The question to be answered in the present case is as to whether
a Hindu unmarried daughter is entitled to claim maintenance from her
father under Section 125 Cr.P.C. only till she attains majority or she can
claim maintenance till she remains unmarried. Section 125(1) Cr.P.C.,
which is relevant for the present case is as follows:-                         H
252            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A           “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and
            parents.—(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or
            refuses to maintain-
                (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
                (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married
B               or not, unable to maintain itself, or
                (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married
                daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by
                reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable
                to maintain itself, or
C
                (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,


                    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX”
            10. The claim of maintenance of applicant No.4 was filed at the
D
      time when she was minor. During pendency of the application, she
      became major on 26.04.2005. The learned Judicial Magistrate, therefore,
      allowed the application of the appellant for maintenance till she attains
      majority on 26.04.2005.
             11. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant
E     is entitled to receive maintenance till she remains unmarried but said
      argument was rejected only on the ground that appellant is not suffering
      from any physical or mental abnormality or injury, therefore, she is not
      entitled for maintenance. The provision on which learned counsel for
      the appellant has placed reliance, i.e., Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions
F     and Maintenance Act, 1956, needs to be noted, which provides for
      maintenance of children and aged parents, which is as follows:-
            “20. Maintenance of children and aged parents.— (1) Subject
            to the provisions of this section a Hindu is bound, during his or her
            lifetime, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children
G           and his or her aged or infirm parents.
            (2) A legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from
            his or her father or mother so long as the child is a minor.
            (3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm
            parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the
H
                 ABHILASHA v. PARKASH & ORS.                                     253
                     [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to        A
       maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other
       property.
       Explanation.— In this section “parent” includes a childless step-
       mother.”
       12. The Act, 1956 was enacted to amend and codify the law                 B
relating to adoptions and maintenance among Hindus. A bare perusal of
Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. as well as Section 20 of Act, 1956 indicates that
whereas Section 125 Cr.P.C. limits the claim of maintenance of a child
until he or she attains majority. By virtue of Section 125(1)(c), an unmarried
daughter even though she has attained majority is entitled for maintenance,      C
where such unmarried daughter is by reason of any physical or mental
abnormality or injury is unable to maintain itself. The Scheme under
Section 125(1) Cr.P.C., thus, contemplate that claim of maintenance by
a daughter, who has attained majority is admissible only when by reason
of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, she is unable to maintain
herself. In the present case, the Revisional Court has returned a finding        D
that appellant is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality
or injury due to which she is unable to maintain herself. The above findings
are not even questioned before us. What is contended that even if she is
not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or injury, by virtue
of Section 20 of Act, 1956, she is entitled to claim maintenance till she is     E
unmarried.
      13. For answering the question as noted above, we need to examine
the nature, extent and scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 488 Cr.P.C. was the provision governing
the maintenance of wife or legitimate or illegitimate child of any person.       F
Section 488(1) Cr.P.C. provided:
       “488(1). If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses
       to maintain his wife or his legitimate or illegitimate child unable to
       maintain itself, the District Magistrate, a Presidency Magistrate,
       a Sub-divisional Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class may,       G
       upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make
       a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child,
       at such monthly rate, not exceeding five hundred rupees in the
       whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such
       person as the Magistrate from time to time directs.”
                                                                                 H
254            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A            14. Section 488 Cr.P.C. sought to inhibit negligence of woman
      and children with intent to serve a social purpose. The provision provided
      for summary proceeding to enable a deserted wife or helpless child,
      legitimate or illegitimate, to get urgent relief. The laws are nothing but
      collective consciousness of community. It is in the interest of the
      community and social order that woman and child who are neglected be
B
      maintained and should be provided a forum to obtain urgent relief to
      enable them to sustain.
            15. This Court in Nanank Chand Vs. Chandra Kishore
      Aggarwal and Others, (1969) 3 SCC 802 had occasion to consider
      the provision of Section 488 Cr.P.C., 1898 The Court had occasion to
C     consider the nature of proceedings under Section 488 Cr.P.C. in reference
      to provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which
      provided for overriding effect of Act. Section 4 of the Act, 1956 is to the
      following effect:
                  “Section 4. Overriding effect of Act- Save as otherwise
D           expressly provided in this Act,-
                   (a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom
            or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the
            commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect
            to any matter for which provision is made in this Act;
E
                    (b) any other law in force immediately before the
            commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so
            far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this
            Act.”

F            16. In Nanak Chand’s case the question arose as to whether by
      virtue of Section 4 of Act, 1956, the provision of Section 488 Cr.P.C.
      shall be overridden. In the above case this Court explained the provisions
      of Section 488 Cr.P.C. as well as Section 20 of the Act, 1956. This Court
      held that there is no inconsistency between Section 488 Cr.P.c. and the
      Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and both can stand together.
G     This Court further held that Section 488 Cr.P.C. provides a summary
      remedy and is applicable to all persons belonging to all religions and has
      no relationship with the personal law of the parties. Following was laid
      down in paragraph 4:
            “4.....The learned Counsel says that Section 488 Cr.P.C., insofar
H           as it provides for the grant of maintenance to a Hindu, is inconsistent
                ABHILASHA v. PARKASH & ORS.                                   255
                    [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      with Chapter III of the Maintenance Act, and in particular, Section     A
      20, which provides for maintenance to children. We are unable to
      see any inconsistency between the Maintenance Act and Section
      488, Cr.P.C. Both can stand together. The Maintenance Act is an
      act to amend and codify the law relating to adoptions and
      maintenance among Hindus. The law was substantially similar
                                                                              B
      before and nobody ever suggested that Hindu Law, as in force
      immediately before the commencement of this Act, insofar as it
      dealt with the maintenance of children, was in any way inconsistent
      with Section 488, Cr.P.C. The scope of the two laws is different.
      Section 488 provides a summary remedy and is applicable to all
      persons belonging to all religions and has no relationship with the     C
      personal law of the parties. Recently the question came before
      the Allahabad High Court in Ram Singh v. State, AIR 1963 All
      355 , before the Calcutta High Court in Mahabir Agarwalla v.
      Gita Roy [1962] 2 Cr. L.J.528 and before the Patna High Court in
      Nalini Ranjan v. Kiran Rani, AIR 1965 Pat 442. The three High
                                                                              D
      Courts have, in our view, correctly come to the conclusion that
      Section 4(b) of the Maintenance Act does not repeal or affect in
      any manner the provisions contained in Section 488, Cr.P.C.”
       17. In Nanak Chand (supra) this Court had approved the
judgments of Allahabad High Court in Ram Singh Vs. State, AIR 1963
All 355, judgment of Patna High Court in Nalini Ranjan Vs. Kiran              E
Rani, AIR 1965 Pat. 442 and judgment of Calcutta High Court in
Mahabir Agarwalla Vs. Gita Roy, [1962] 2 Cr. L.J.528. This Court
in Mst. Zohara Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, (1981) 2 SCC 509,
after noticing the judgment of this Court in Nanak Chand’s case
extracted relevant portions of judgments of Ram Singh, Mahabir                F
Agarwalla and Nalini Ranjan (supra) which were approved by this
Court in Nanak Chand. In Ram Singh’s case, Allahabad High Court
took the view that Section 18 of Act, 1956 cannot be substituted for
Section 488 Cr.P.C. In Nalini Ranjan, Patna High Court held that Section
488 Cr.P.C. provided a separate remedy and Section 488 Cr.P.C. covered
the civil liability of a husband under the personal law. It is useful to      G
extract paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment of this Court in Zohara
Khatoon which are to the following effect:
             “8. It would be seen that this Court approved of the decisions
      in the cases of Ram Singh, Mahabir Agarwalla and Nalini Ranjan
                                                                              H
256      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A     mentioned in the observations extracted above. In order to
      understand the proper scope of Section 488 of the 1898 Code
      which is almost the same as that of Section 125 of the 1973 Code,
      it may be necessary to examine the decisions which were referred
      to with approval by this Court in Nanak Chand’s case (supra). In
      Ram Singh v. State and Anr. Kailash Prasad, J. observed as
B
      follows :-
                “There is nothing in the Hindu Adoptions and
         Maintenance Act to suggest expressly or by necessary
         implication that the Act is intended to be a substitute for the
         provisions of Section 488 Cr.P.C. In fact the provisions of
C        Section 18 of the Act cannot be a substitute for Section 488
         Cr.P.C. The latter provision is general and is applicable to a
         wife, irrespective of her religion, but the former is applicable
         to the case of Hindus only. It could not, therefore, be intended
         to be a substitute for Section 488 Cr.P.C.
D     To the same effect is the decision of the Patna High Court in
      Nalini Ranjan Chakravarty v. Smt. Kiran Rani Chakravarty, AIR
      1965 Pat 442 where the following observations were made :-
                 Before the enactment of 1956, it was well settled that
         the right conferred by Section 488 Cr.P.C. was independent of
E        the personal law of the parties. The right of maintenance under
         Section 488 was irrespective of the nationality or creed of the
         parties, the only condition precedent to the possession of that
         right being in the case of a wife the acceptance of the conjugal
         relation. Further, Section 488 provided for only a speedy remedy
F        and a summary procedure before a Magistrate against starvation
         of a deserted wife or child. This section did not cover the civil
         liability of a husband or a father under his personal law to
         maintain his wife and children.
            9. The Calcutta High Court also took the same view in
G     Mahabir Agarwalla v. Gita Roy [1962] 2 Cr. L.J. 528 where the
      following observations were made :-
               An alternative but not inconsistent summary remedy was
         provided by Section 488 of the CrPC not only to the Hindu
         wife but generally to wives irrespective of religion for recovery
         of maintenance from the husband. The two remedies were,
H
         however, not co-extensive.
                ABHILASHA v. PARKASH & ORS.                                  257
                    [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

            10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned        A
      above, it is clear that the 1898 Code by virtue of Section 488
      provided a summary remedy for awarding maintenance to neglected
      wives irrespective of caste, creed, community or religion to which
      they belonged. It was in this context that the Courts referred to
      above considered the effect of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
                                                                             B
      Act and other similar Acts.”
      18. This Court in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao
Shivram Adhav and Another, (1988) 1 SCC 530, held that personal
law applicable to the parties cannot altogether be excluded from
consideration in proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
                                                                             C
      19. In Yamunabai’s case(supra), the question involved was as
to whether a Hindu woman who is married after coming into force of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to a Hindu male having a living lawfully
wedded wife, can maintain an application for maintenance under Section
125 Cr.P.C. This Court in the above case held the marriage of Yamunabai
to be null and void from its very inception. In the above context, this      D
Court referred to provision of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to find out
marital status. In paragraphs 5 and 6, following was laid down:
             “5. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that
      the term ‘wife ‘ in Section 125 of the Code should be given a
      wider and extended meaning so as to include therein not only a         E
      lawfully wedded wife but also a woman married in fact by
      performance of necessary rites or following the procedure laid
      down under the law. Relying upon the decision of this Court in
      Mohd. Ahmed khan v. Shah Bano Beghum, 1985 Cri LJ 875 it
      was argued that the personal law of the parties to a proceeding        F
      under Section 125 of the Code should be completely excluded
      from consideration. The relationship of husband and wife comes
      to an end on divorce, but a divorcee has been held to be entitled to
      the benefits of the section, it was urged, and therefore applying
      this approach a woman in the same position as the present appellant
      should be brought within the sweep of the section. We are afraid,      G
      the argument is not well founded. A divorcee is included within
      the section on account of Clause (b) of the Explanation. The
      position under the corresponding Section 488 of the code of 1898
      was different. A divorcee could not avail of the summary remedy.
      The wife’s right to maintenance depended upon the continuance          H
258            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A           of her married status. It was pointed out in Shah Bano’s case that
            since that right could be defeated by the husband by divorcing her
            unilaterally under the Muslim Personal Law or by obtaining a
            decree of divorce under any other system of law, it was considered
            desirable to remove the hardship by extending the benefit of the
            provisions of the section to a divorced woman so long as she did
B
            not remarry, and that was achieved by including Clause (b) of the
            Explanation. Unfortunately for the appellant no corresponding
            provision was brought in so as to apply to her. The legislature
            decided to bestow the benefit of the Section even on an illegitimate
            child by express words but none are found to apply to a de facto
C           wife where the marriage is void ab initio.
            6. The attempt to exclude altogether the personal law applicable
            to the parties from consideration also has to be repelled. The section
            has been enacted in the interest of a wife, and one who intends to
            take benefit under Sub-section (1)(a) has to establish the necessary
D           condition, namely, that she is the wife of the person concerned.
            This issue can be decided only by a reference to the law applicable
            to the parties. It is only where an applicant establishes her status
            on relationship with reference to the personal law that an
            application for maintenance can be maintained. Once the right
            under the section is established by proof of necessary conditions
E           mentioned therein, it cannot be defeated by further reference to
            the personal law. The issue whether the section is attracted or not
            cannot be answered except by the reference to the appropriate
            law governing the parties. In our view the judgment in Shah Bano’s
            case does not help the appellant. It may be observed that for the
F           purpose of extending the benefit of the section to a divorced
            woman and an illegitimate child the Parliament considered it
            necessary to include in the section specific provisions to that effect,
            but has not done so with respect to women not lawfully married.”
            20. It is to be noted that in the above case personal law was
G     looked into to find out as to whether an application filed by the appellant
      Yamunabai claiming to be his wife was maintainable or not. Another
      judgment which needs to be noted is Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs. State
      of Gujarat and Another, (1996) 4 SCC 479. The question which
      came for consideration before this Court was as to whether expression
      “mother” used in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
H
                 ABHILASHA v. PARKASH & ORS.                                     259
                     [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

includes stepmother. This Court referring to Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well         A
as provision of Section 20 of Act, 1956 held that stepmother can claim
maintenance from her stepson provided she is widow of her husband, if
living, and also incapable of maintaining and supporting her.
       21. Now, we come to the Three Judge Bench judgment of this
Court as relied by learned counsel for the appellant, i.e., Jagdish              B
Jugtawat (supra). In the above case, the respondent No.3 was a minor
unmarried girl of the petitioner. The wife of the petitioner, i.e., mother of
respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming
maintenance @ Rs.500/- per month to each of the applicant, which was
granted by the Family Court. A revision was filed before the High Court
assailing the order contending that the respondent No.3, Kumari Rakhi            C
was entitled to maintenance only till she attains majority and not
thereafter. High Court although accepted the legal position that under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., a minor daughter is entitled to maintenance from
her parents only till she attains majority but declined to interfere with the
orders passed by the Family Court taking the cue from Section 20(3) of           D
the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The facts of the case and
observations of the High Court have been made in the paragraph 2 of
the judgment, which is to the following effect:-
      “2. The Petitioner is the father of Kumari Rakhi, Respondent 3
      herein, who is a minor unmarried girl. Considering the application         E
      filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by
      Respondent 1, wife of the Petitioner and mother of Respondent 3,
      claiming maintenance for herself and her two children, the Family
      Court by order dated 22.7.2000 granted maintenance @ Rs.500
      per month to each of the Applicants. The Petitioner herein filed a
      revision petition before the High Court assailing the order of the         F
      Family Court on the ground, inter alia, that Respondent 3 was
      entitled to maintenance only till she attains majority and not
      thereafter. Considering the point the learned Single Judge of the
      High Court accepted, the legal position that under Section-125,
      CrPC, a minor daughter is entitled to maintenance from her parents         G
      only till she attains majority, but declined to interfere with the order
      passed by the Family Court taking the cue from Section 20(3) of
      the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act under which the right
      of maintenance is given to a minor daughter till her marriage. The
      learned Single Judge was persuaded to maintain the order of the
                                                                                 H
260            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A           Family Court with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
            The relevant portion of the judgment of the High Court is quoted
            here:
               “Thus, in view of the above, though it cannot be said that the
               order impugned runs counter to the law laid down by the Hon’ble
B              Supreme Court, the provisions of Section 125 CrPC are
               applicable irrespective of the personal law and it does not make
               any distinction whether the daughter claiming maintenance is
               a Hindu or a Muslim. However, taking an overall view of the
               matter, I, with all respect to the Hon’ble Court, am of the candid
               view that the provisions require literal interpretation and a
C              daughter would cease to have the benefit of the provisions
               under Section 125 CrPC on attaining majority, though she would
               be entitled to claim the benefits further under the statute/
               personal law. But the Court is not inclined to interfere, as the
               order does not result in miscarriage of justice, rather interfering
D              with the order would create great inconvenience to Respondent
               3 as she would be forced to file another petition under sub-
               section (3) of Section 20 of the Act of 1956 for further
               maintenance etc. Thus, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigations,
               the order impugned does not warrant interference.”
E                                                            (underlined by us)
             22. The judgment of this Court in Jagdish Jugtawat (supra) is
      sheet anchor of learned counsel for the appellant. The question which
      came for consideration before this Court in Jagdish Jugtawat’s case
      has been noted in paragraph 3 of the judgment which is to the following
F     effect:
            “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.
            .....”
G           23. This Court answered the question noticed in paragraph 3 as
      above in paragraph 4 in the following words:
            “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
H           is recognized in Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and
                 ABHILASHA v. PARKASH & ORS.                                   261
                     [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      Maintenance Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the             A
      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, Code of Criminal Procedure 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
                                                                               B
      circumstances of the case no interference with the impugned
      judgment order of the High Court is called for.”
       24. In the above case, an order was passed by the Family Court
by granting maintenance which was based on combined reading of
Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 20 of Act, 1956. Although, the High
Court and this Court had declined to interfere with the order of the           C
Family Court taking the cue from Section 20(3) of the Act, 1956 under
which the right of maintenance is given to a minor daughter till her
marriage, but the judgment of this Court in Jagdish Jugtawat (supra)
cannot be read to laying down the ratio that in proceedings under Section
125 Cr.P.C. filed by the daughter against her father, she is entitled to       D
maintenance relying on the liability of the father to maintain her unmarried
daughter as contained in Section 20(3) of the Act, 1956. The High Court
in exercise of Criminal Revisional jurisdiction can very well refuse to
interfere with the judgment of Courts below by which maintenance was
granted to unmarried daughter. This Court while hearing criminal appeal
against the above judgment of High Court was exercising jurisdiction           E
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, and in the facts of that
case, this Court refused to interfere with the judgment of High Court but
in refusal to interfere by this Court, no ratio can be read in the judgment
of Jagdish Jugtawat (supra) as contended by learned counsel for the
appellant.                                                                     F
       25. In Classical Hindu Law prior to codification, a Hindu male
was always held morally and legally liable to maintain his aged parents,
a virtuous wife and infant child. Hindu Law always recognised the liability
of father to maintain an unmarried daughter. In this context, we refer to
paragraph 539 and 543 of Mulla – Hindu Law – 22nd Edition, which is as         G
follows:-
      “539. Personal liability: liability of father, husband and son.—
      A Hindu is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife, his minor
      sons, his unmarried daughters, and his aged parents whether he
      possesses any property or not. The obligation to maintain these          H
262            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A           relations is personal in character and arises from the very existence
            of the relation between the parties.
                  Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
            Act, 1956 deal with the question of maintenance of wife, children
            and aged parents. Reference may be made to the notes under
B           those sections.
            543. Daughter. – (1) A father is bound to maintain his unmarried
            daughters. On the death of the father, they are entitled to be
            maintained out of his estate.
                             XXXXXXXXXXXXXX”
C

            26. Muslim Law also recognises the obligation of father to maintain
      his daughters until they are married. Referring to Mulla’s Principle of
      Mohammedan Law, this Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs.
D     Santra (Smt.), (2000) 5 SCC 182 in paragraph 40 held:-
            “40. Similarly, under the Mohammedan Law, a father is bound to
            maintain his sons until they have attained the age of puberty. He
            is also bound to maintain his daughters until they are married.
            [See: Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law (19th Edn.) page
            300]......................”
E
             27. Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
      is nothing but recognition of principles of Hindu Law regarding
      maintenance of children and aged parents. Section 20(3) now makes it
      statutory obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is
      unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or
F
      other property.
             28. Section 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
      cast a statutory obligation on a Hindu to maintain his daughter who is
      unmarried and unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or
      other property. As noted above, Hindu Law prior to enactment of Act,
G     1956 always obliged a Hindu to maintain unmarried daughter, who is
      unable to maintain herself. The obligation, which is cast on the father to
      maintain his unmarried daughter, can be enforced by her against her
      father, if she is unable to maintain herself by enforcing her right under
      Section 20.
H
                 ABHILASHA v. PARKASH & ORS.                                     263
                     [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

        29. We may also notice another judgment of this Court in Noor            A
Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Quasim, (1997) 6 SCC 233, which was a
case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. A Muslim wife with her two daughters
and a son filed an application claiming maintenance under Section 125
Cr.P.C. The trial court allowed the maintenance to the wife and children
from her husband. The husband after divorcing the wife filed application
                                                                                 B
in the trial court seeking modification of the order in view of the provisions
of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
The trial court modified the order insofar as the grant of maintenance of
wife was concerned but maintained the order of maintenance to each of
the three minor children. The husband challenged the order by means of
revision, which was dismissed by the Revisional Court. An application            C
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed in the High Court. The High Court
accepted the claim of husband and relying on provision of Section 3(1)(b)
of the Act, 1986 held that a Muslim wife is entitled to claim maintenance
from her previous husband for her children only for a period of two
years from the date of birth of the child concerned. The High Court held
                                                                                 D
that minor children were not entitled for maintenance under Section 125,
Cr.P.C. A special leave to appeal was filed questioning the judgment.
This Court dealing with Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as Act, 1986 held
that effect of a beneficial legislation like Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be
allowed to be defeated except through clear provisions of a statute. This
Court held that there is no conflict between the two provisions.                 E
       30. This Court noticed the provisions of Section 3 of Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and Section 125 Cr.P.C. It
is relevant to refer to the following observations made by this Court in
paragraph 7 of the above judgment:
              “7....Under Section 125, CrPC the maintenance of the               F
       children is obligatory on the father (irrespective of his religion)
       and as long as he is in a position to do so and the children have no
       independent means of their own, it remains his absolute obligation
       to provide for them. Insofar as children born of Muslim parents
       are concerned there is nothing in Section 125 CrPC which exempts          G
       a Muslim father from his obligation to maintain the children. These
       provisions are not affected by Clause (b) of Section 3(1) of the
       1986 Act and indeed it would be unreasonable, unfair, inequitable
       and even preposterous to deny the benefit of Section 125 CrPC
       to the children only on the ground that they are born of Muslim
                                                                                 H
264             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A           parents. The effect of a beneficial legislation like Section 125
            CrPC, cannot be allowed to be defeated except through clear
            provisions of a statute. We do not find manifestation of any such
            intention in the 1986 Act to take away the independent rights of
            the children to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC where
            they are minor and are unable to maintain themselves. A Muslim
B
            father’s obligation, like that of a Hindu father, to maintain his minor
            children as contained in Section 125 CrPC is absolute and is not
            at all affected by Section 3(1)(b) of the 1986 Act. ......”
             31. The provision of Section 20 of Act, 1956 cast clear statutory
      obligation on a Hindu to maintain his unmarried daughter who is unable
C     to maintain herself. The right of unmarried daughter under Section 20 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 is
      right granted under personal law, which can very well be enforced by
      her against her father. The judgment of this Court in Jagdish Jugtawat
D     (supra) laid down that Section 20(3) of Act, 1956 recognised the right
      of a minor girl to claim maintenance after she attains majority till her
      marriage from her father. Unmarried daughter is clearly entitled for
      maintenance from her father till she is married even though she has
      become major, which is a statutory right recognised by Section 20(3)
      and can be enforced by unmarried daughter in accordance with law.
E
             32. After enactment of Family Courts Act, 1984, a Family Court
      shall also have the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First
      Class under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. relating to order for maintenance of
      wife, children and parents. Family Courts shall have the jurisdiction only
      with respect to city or town whose population exceeds one million, where
F     there is no Family Courts, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall
      have to be before the Magistrate of the First Class. In an area where
      the Family Court is not established, a suit or proceedings for maintenance
      including the proceedings under Section 20 of the Act, 1956 shall only be
      before the District Court or any subordinate Civil Court.
G            33. There may be a case where the Family Court has jurisdiction
      to decide a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as the suit under
      Section 20 of Act, 1956, in such eventuality, Family Court can exercise
      jurisdiction under both the Acts and in an appropriate case can grant
      maintenance to unmarried daughter even though she has become major
H     enforcing her right under Section 20 of Act, 1956 so as to avoid multiplicity
                 ABHILASHA v. PARKASH & ORS.                                     265
                     [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

of proceedings as observed by this Court in the case of Jagdish                  A
Jugtawat (supra). However the Magistrate in exercise of powers under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot pass such order.
       34. In the case before us, the application was filed under Section
125 Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewari who passed
the order dated 16.02.2011. The Magistrate while deciding proceedings            B
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. could not have exercised the jurisdiction under
Section 20(3) of Act, 1956 and the submission of the appellant cannot be
accepted that the Court below should have allowed the application for
maintenance even though she has become major. We do not find any
infirmity in the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as
learned Additional Magistrate in not granting maintenance to appellant           C
who had become major.
       35. The maintenance as contemplated under Act, 1956 is a larger
concept as compared to concept of maintenance under Section 125
Cr.P.C. Section 3(b) while defining maintenance gives an inclusive
definition including marriage expenses in following words:-                      D

      “3.Definitions- In this Act unless the context otherwise requires-
                        XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
      (b) “Maintenance” includes-
                                                                                 E
          (i) in all cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education
              and medical attendance and treatment;
          (ii) in the case of an unmarried daughter also the reasonable
               expenses of and incident to her marriage;
      (c) “minor” means a person who has not completed his or her age            F
      of eighteen years.”
       36. 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, hence         G
for the larger claims as enshrined under Section 20, the proceedings
need to be initiated under Section 20 of the Act and the legislature never
contemplated to burden the Magistrate while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. to determine the claims contemplated by Act, 1956.

                                                                                 H
266            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A            37. There are three more reasons due to which we are satisfied
      that the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate as well as
      learned Additional Sessions Judge in the revision was not required to be
      interfered with by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section
      482 Cr.P.C. The reasons are as follows:-
B           (i) The application was filed by the mother of the appellant in
                the year 2002 claiming maintenance on her behalf as well as
                on behalf of her two sons and appellant, who was minor at
                that time. The appellant being minor at that time when
                application was filed on 17.10.2002, there was no occasion
                for any pleading on behalf of the appellant that she was not
C               able to maintain herself even after attaining the majority.
                Section 20 of the Act, 1956 on which reliance has been placed
                by learned counsel for the appellant recognising the right of
                maintenance of unmarried daughter by a person subject to
                the condition when “the parents or the unmarried daughter,
D               as the case may be, is unable to maintain themselves/herself
                out of their/her own earnings or other property”. The learned
                Additional Sessions Judge noticed the submission of the
                respondent that appellant did not come in the witness box
                even when she had attained majority to claim that she was
                unable to maintain herself, which contention has been noted
E               in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the learned Additional
                Sessions Judge.
            (ii) From the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, another
                 fact, which is relevant to be noticed is that applicant Nos. 2
                 to 4, which included the appellant also had filed the proceedings
F                under Section 20 of the Act, 1956 being Suit No. 6 of 2001,
                 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.12.2012.
            (iii) Another factor, which need to be noticed that in the counter
                  affidavit filed in this appeal, there was a specific pleading of
                  the respondent that a plot of land was purchased in name of
G                 the appellant admeasuring 214 sq. Yds. In the rejoinder
                  affidavit filed by the appellant, it has been admitted that the
                  plot was purchased on 31.07.2000 from the joint income
                  earned by mother and father of the appellant, which had been
                  agreed to be sold in the year 2012 for a total sale consideration
H                 of Rs.11,77,000/-. In the rejoinder affidavit, an affidavit of
                     ABHILASHA v. PARKASH & ORS.                                   267
                         [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

                prospective purchaser has been filed by the appellant, where       A
                it is mentioned that agreement to sell had taken place between
                appellant and Arjun on 31.07.2000 for a sale consideration of
                Rs.11,77,000/-, out of which appellant had received
                Rs.10,89,000 as earnest money.
       38. We, thus, accept the submission of the learned counsel for the          B
appellant that as a preposition of law, an unmarried Hindu daughter can
claim maintenance from her father till she is married relying on Section
20(3) of the 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 Act, 1956.
                                                                                   C
      39. In facts of the present case the ends of justice be served by
giving liberty to the appellant to take recourse to Section 20(3) of the
Act, 1956, if so advised, for claiming any maintenance against her father.
Subject to liberty as above, the appeal is dismissed.
                                                                                   D
Devika Gujral                                                  Appeal dismissed.




                                                                                   E




                                                                                   F




                                                                                   G




                                                                                   H