Holding

Section 125(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code imposes a maintenance liability on both sons and daughters, and the pronoun "his" is to be interpreted as gender‑neutral.

Summary

Dr. (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat, a married medical practitioner, was sued by her father, Kashirao Rajaram Sawai, for maintenance under Section 125(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, on the ground that he could not maintain himself. The trial magistrate and the Bombay High Court held the application maintainable, prompting the daughter to appeal to the Supreme Court. The principal issue was whether the pronoun "his" in the provision limited the liability to a son, thereby excluding a daughter, and whether a married daughter retained a duty to maintain her parents. The Court examined Section 2(y) of the CrPC, Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1) of the General Clauses Act, concluding that "his" includes females. It held that Section 125(1)(d) imposes a maintenance liability on both sons and daughters, provided the daughter has independent means and the parent is unable to maintain themselves. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a father can claim maintenance from his married daughter under Section 125(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Whether the pronoun "his" in clause (d) of Section 125(1) is gender‑neutral and includes a daughter.
Whether the liability to maintain parents extends to daughters irrespective of their marital status.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 125(1)(d), s. 2(y)
General Clauses Acts. 13(1)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 8

Subjects

maintenancesection 125Criminal Procedure Codegender neutral interpretationparental maintenancemarried daughterlegal pronoun interpretationsocial obligation

Judgment

DR. (MRS.) VIJAYA MANOHAR ARBAT
A
v.
KASHI RAO RAJARAM SAWAI AND ANR.
-'I
FEBRUARY 18, 1987

[G.L. OZA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.] B

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, section 125( l)(d), scope of-
Interpretation of the pronoun 'his'-Whether includes 'her'-Section
- J 2(y) of Criminal Procedure Code read with section 8 of Indian Penal
Code and section 13( 1) of the General bauses Act-Maintenance of
><,.. father/mother by a daughter-Whether a claim by a father under section
125( l)(d) Criminal Procedure Code maintainable.
c

The appellant, a medical practitioner at Kalyan, District Thane, is
--~ the married daughter of Respondent No. 1, Kashirao Rajaram Sawai,
hy his first wife, who died in 1948. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 re-
married and he is living with his second wife. He filed an application D
before the Judicial Magistrate, First Court Kalyan claiming mainte-
nance from the appellant at the rate of Rs.500 per month on the ground
that he was unable to maintain himself.

A preliminary objection raised to the effect, that an application
.J under section 125(1)(d) Criminal Procedure Code hy a father to claim E
maintenance from his daughter was not maintainable was overruled hy

-y
the Trial Magistrate and upheld by the High Court in revision. Hence
the daughter's appeal hy Special leave.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
F
HELD: 1.1 An application under section 125(1)(d) of the Code of
-l Criminal Procedure, 1973, hy a father claiming maintenance from his
married daughter is perfectly maintainable. [337C]

1.2 Section 125(1)(d) of the Code (a new provision) has imposed a
liability on both the son and the daughter to maintain their father or G
mother who is unable to maintain himself or herself. [337F]

A 1.3 The object of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code is to pro-
vide a summary remedy to save dependents frcim destitution and vag-
rancy and thus to serve a social purpose. There can be no doubt that it
is the moral obligation of a son or a daughter to maintain his or her H
331
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A parents. It is not desirable that even though a son or a daughter has
sufficient means, his or her parents would starve. Apart from any law,
the Indian Society casts a duty on the children of a person to maintain
their parents if they are not in a position to maintain themselves. It is
also their duty to look aft.er their parents when they become old and
infirm. [335B-C]
B
Bhagwan Dutt v. Kam/a Devi, [1975] 2 SCC 386, referred to.

2.1 It is true that clause (d) has used the expression 'his father or
mother' but, the use of the word 'his' does not exclude the parents
claiming maintenance from their daughter. Section 2(y) Criminal Pro-
C cedure Code provides that words and expressions used herein and not
defined but defined in the Indian Penal Code have the meanings respec-
tively assigned to them in that Code. Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code
lays down that the pronoun 'he' and its derivatives are used for any
person whether male or female. Thus, in view of section 8 Indian Penal
Code read with section 2(y) Criminal Procedure Code, the pronoun
D 'his' in clause (d) of section 125(1) Criminal Procedure Code also indi-
cates a female. Section 13(1) of the General Clauses Act lays down that
in all Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant
in the subject or context, words importing the masculine gender shall be
taken to include females. Therefore, the pronoun 'his' as used in clause
(d) of section 125(1) Criminal Procedure Code includes both a male and

-
E a female. In other words, the parents will be entitled to claim mainte-
nance against their daughter provided, however, the other conditions as
mentioned in the section are fulfilled. Before ordering maintenance in
favour of a father or a mother against their married daughter, the court
must be satisfied that the daughter has sufficient means of her own
independently of the means or income of her husband, and that the
F father or the mother, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself
or herself. [335E-H; 336A-B]

2.2 When the statute provides that the pronoun 'his' not onlv
denotes a male but also a female, it is not necessary to refer to the report
of the Joint Committee on Criminal Procedure Code Bill for the in-
G terpretation of clause (d) of section 125(1) Criminal Procedure Code.
The father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, can claim
. maintenance from their son or daughter. The expression 'his father or
mother' is not confined olllly to the father or mother of the son but also
to the father or mother of the daughter. In other words, the expression
'his father or mother' should also be construed as 'her father or
H mother'. [336H; 337A-B]
V.M. ARBAT v. KASH! RAO IDUTT, J.) 333

2.3 A daughter after her marriage does not cease to he a daughter
of the father or mother. If it is not so, parents having no son but only A
daughters and unable to maintain themselves, would go destitute, if the
daughters even though they have sufficient means refuse to maintain
their parents. [337D-E)

Raj Kumari v. Yashodha Devi, (1978] Cr. L.J. 608, overruled. B

--
M. Areefa Beevi v. Dr. K.M. Sahib, (1983] Cr. L.J. 412 and
Repalli Masthanamma v. Thota Sriramulu, [1982] An. W.R. 393,
..,..
.. approved.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE WRISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 378 of 1986. C

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.1985 of the Bombay
High Court in Cr!. Revision Appln. No. 167 of 1985.

V .N. Gan pule for the Appellant. D

A.M. Khanwilkar, A.S. Bhasme and G.B. Sathe for the Res-
pondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
DUTT, J. The only point that is involved in this appeal by
special leave is whether the respondent No. I is entitled to claim
maintenance from the appellant, his married daughter, under section
125(1)(d) Cr. P.C.

The appellant Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Arbat, a medical practitioner at F
Kalyan, District Thane, is the married daughter of the respondent No.
1 Kashirao Rajaram Sawai, by his first wife. Her mother died in 1948.
Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 remarried and is living with his
second wife. The respondent No. I filed an application before the
Judicial Magistrate, First Court, Kalyan, claiming maintenance. from
the appellant, his daughter, at the rate of Rs.500 per month on the G
ground that he was unable to maintain himself.

At the outset, the appellant raised a preliminary objection to the
maintainability of the application on the ground that section 125(1)(d)
Cr.P.C. does not entitle a father to claim maintenance from his daugh-
ter. The preliminary objection was overruled by the learned Magis- H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

!rate, and it was held by him that the application was maintainable.
A
Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the appellant 'r-
moved the Bombay High Court in revision. The High Court affirmed
the order of the learned Magistrate and held that the application of a
father for maintenance who is unable to maintain himself is maintain-
able against his married daughter having sufficient means. In that view
B of the matter the High Court dismissed the revisional application of
the appellant. Hence this appeal by special leave.

c
Sub-section (1) of ~ection 125 Cr.P.C. provides as under:-

"If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses
to maintain-
r .
--., -
~·-

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether
married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
D
(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
il)jury unable to maintain itself, or )...•

E (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or
herself,

a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such
neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly
allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child,
F father or mother, 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 may
from time to time direct:

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of
G a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such
allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate
is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if
married, is not possessed of sufficient means."

Sub-section (1) of section 125 confers power on the Magistrate of
H the First Class to order a person to make a monthly allowance for the
V.M. ARBAT v. KASHI RAO iDUTT. J.] 335

maintenance of some of his close relations like wife, children, father
A
and mother under certain circumstances. It has been observed by this
Court in Bhagwan Dutt v. Kam/a Devi, [1975] 2 SCC 386 that the
object of section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide a summary remedy to save
dependents from destitution and vagrancy and thus to serve a social
purpose.
B
There can be no doubt that it is the moral obligation of a son or a
daughter to maintain his or her parents. It is not desirable that even
though a son or a daughter has sufficient means, his or her parents
would starve. Apart from any Jaw, the Indian society casts a duty on
the children of a person to maintain their parents if they are not in a
position to maintain themselves. It is also their duty to look after their C
parents when they become old and infirm.

The' learned Counsel, appearing on behdlf of the appellant, has
urged that under clause (d) of section 125(1) a father is not entitled to
claim maintenance from his daughter whether married or not. Our
attention has been drawn to the use of the pronoun 'his' in clause (d) D
and it is submitted that the pronoun indicates that it is only the son
who is burdened with the obligation to maintain his parents. Counsel
submits that if the legislature had intended that the maintenance can
•. J be claimed by the perents from the daughter as well, it would not have
used the pronoun 'his'.
E
We are unable to accept this contention. It is true that clause (d)
has used the expression "his father or mother" but, in our opinion, the
use of the word 'his' does not exclude the parents claiming mainte-
nance from their daughter. Section 2(y) Cr.P.C. provides that words
and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Indian
Penal Code have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that F
Code. Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that the pronoun
'he' and its derivatives are used for any person whether male or
female. Thus, in view of section 8 IPC read with section 2(y) Cr.P.C.,
the pronoun 'his' in clause (d) of section 125(1) Cr.P.C. also indicates
a female. Section 13(1) of the General Clauses Act Jays down that in
all Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in G
the subject or context, words importing the masculine gender shall be
taken to include females. Therefore, the pronoun 'his' as used in
clause (d) of section 125(1) Cr.P.C. includes both a male and a female.
In other words, the parents will be entitled to claim maintenance
against their daughter provided, however, the other conditions as
mentioned in the section are fulfilled. Before ordering maintenance in H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A favour of a father or a mother against their married daughter, the court
must be satisfied that the daughter has sufficient means of her own \·-
independently of the means or income of her husband, and that the
father or the mother, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself
or herself.

B Much reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the
appellant on a decision of the Kerala High Court in Raj Kumari'v.
YashotJ,ha De>i, (1978] Cr.L.J. 600. In that case it has betn held by a t! ~

learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, mainly relying upon
the report of the Joint Committee on the Criminal Procedure Code
Bill, 1973, that a daughter is not liable to maintain her parents who are
...." >"

unable to maintain themselves. The Joint Committee in their report
c made the following recommendations:-
'\--·
"The committee considers that the right of the parents not
possessed of sufficient means, to be maintained by their
son should be recognised by making a provision that where
D the father or mother is unable to maintain himself or her-
self an order for payment of maintenance may be directed
to a son who is possessed of suffident means. If there are
two or more children the parents may seek the remedy
against any one or more of them" (Emphasis supplied).
f-
E The learned Judge of the Kerala High Court did not refer in his
judgment to the sentence which has been underlined. It is true that in ~

the first part of the report the word 'son' has been used, but in the
latter part which has been underlined the recommendation is that if
there are two or more children the parents may seek the remedy ~
against any one or more of them. If the recommendation of the Joint
F Committee was that the liability to maintain the parents, unable to -+-
maintain themselves, would be on the son only, in that case, in the
latter portion of the report the Joint Committee would not have used
the word 'children' which admittedly includes sons and duaghters. In
our opinion, as we read the report of the Joint Committee, it did not
place the burden of maintaining the parents. only on the son, but re-
G commended that the liability to maintain the parents should be of the
sons and the daughters as well. We have referred to the report of the
Joint Committee inasmuch as the same has been relied upon in Raj
Kumari's case (supra) by the Kerala High Court and also on beh~lf of
the appellant in the instant case. When the statute provides that the
pronoun 'his' not only denotes a male but also a female, we do not
H think it necessary to refer to the report of the Joint Committee for the
V.M. ARBAT v. KASH! RAO [DUTT, J.] 337

interpretation of clause (d) of section 125(1) Cr.P.C. The father or A
mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, can claim maintenance
from their son or daughter. The expression "his father or mother" is
not confined only to the father or mother of the son but also to the
father or mother of the daughter. In other words, the expression "his
father or mother" should also be construed as "her father or mother".
B

In M. Areefa Beevi v. Dr. K.M. Sahib, [1983) Cr.L.J. 412, and
Repalli Masthanamma v. Thota Sn'ramulu, [1982) An.W.R. 393, another
Single Bench of the Kerala High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High
Court have respectivley taken the view that the parents who are unable
to maintain themselves can claim maintenance also from their daugh-
ters under section 125(1)(d) Cr.P .C. c

We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that a
married daughter has no obligation to maintain her parents even if
they are unable to maintain themselves. It has been rightly pointed out
by the High Court that a daughter after her marriage does not cease to D
be a daughter of the father or mother. It has been earlier noticed that
it is the moral obligation of the children to maintain their parents. In
case the contention of the appellant that the daughter has no liability
whatsoever to maintain her parents is accepted, in that case, parents
having no son but only daughters and unable to maintain themselves,
would go destitute, if the daughters even though they have sufficient E
-· means refuse to maintain their parents.

After giving our best consideration to the question, we are of the
view that section 125(1)(d) has imposed a liability on both the son and
the daughter to maintain their father or mother who is unable to main- F
tain himself or herself. Section 488 of the old Criminal Procedure
Code did not contain a provision like clause (d) of section 125(1). The
legislature in enacting Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 thought it wise
to provide for the maintenance of the parents of a person when such
parents are unable to maintain themselves. The purpose of such en-
actment is to enforce social obligation and we do not think why the G
l daughter should he excluded from such obligation to maintain their
parents.

The judgment of the High Court is affirmed and this appeal is
dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A The learned Magistrate will now dispose of the application under
section 125(1)(d) Cr.P.C. of the respondent on merits in accordance
with law. We make it dear that we have not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case.

S.R. Appeal dismissed.

\ <