Unmarried Daughter Can't Claim Maintenance

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Rajnish Kumar held that a mentally and physically fit major unmarried daughter cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and must instead file under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The ruling came while setting aside a Family Court order directing maintenance to a major daughter under Section 125 CrPC. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Anurag Pandey v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another (2025). 

What was the Background of Anurag Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another (2025)? 

• Kumari Neha Pandey, an unmarried major daughter, filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking maintenance from her father, Anurag Pandey. 
• At the time of filing the application, the daughter had already attained majority age, which was disclosed in the application itself. 
• The Family Court, despite noting that she was a major at the time of filing, directed the father to pay maintenance of ₹10,000 per month, relying on Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. 
• The father challenged this order through a criminal revision, arguing that the trial court had misinterpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Abhilasha v. Parkash (2020). 
• The father contended that the major daughter is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and such relief can only be obtained by filing a civil suit under Section 20(3) of the 1956 Act. 
• The counsel for the daughter fairly conceded that the legal position argued by the father was correct and suggested that the matter be remitted to the Family Court for conversion into proceedings under Section 20(3) to avoid multiplicity of cases. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Only minor children or major children with physical/mental abnormality can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. A mentally and physically fit major unmarried daughter cannot claim maintenance under this provision. 
• Major unmarried daughters must seek maintenance under Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which requires civil court proceedings with proper pleadings and evidence. 
• Section 125 CrPC provides immediate relief through summary proceedings, while Section 20(3) HAMA involves larger rights requiring civil court determination. 
•  Maintenance under Section 20(3) requires consideration of specific factors under Sections 23 and 24 of the 1956 Act, including parties' status, claimant's reasonable wants, and property value. 
• The Family Court cannot award maintenance under Section 20(3) HAMA in Section 125 CrPC proceedings without following proper civil procedure and considering mandatory factors. 
• If daughter becomes major during pendency of Section 125 proceedings, conversion is permissible. However, if application is filed after attaining majority, it must be converted to civil suit under Section 20(3) HAMA. 
• The Court directed conversion of the Section 125 CrPC application into a civil suit under Section 20(3) HAMA to avoid multiplicity of cases, with expeditious disposal within six months. 

Can a Major Unmarried Daughter Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC or Must She File Under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act? 

• Age Restriction Under Section 125 CrPC: A major unmarried daughter who is mentally and physically fit cannot claim maintenance under Section 125(1)(b) CrPC, which specifically provides maintenance only for "minor children" unable to maintain themselves. 
• Exception Limited to Disability: Section 125(1)(c) CrPC permits maintenance for major children only if they suffer from "physical or mental abnormality or injury" making them unable to maintain themselves, excluding healthy major daughters. 
• Legislative Intent Clear: The Criminal Procedure Code deliberately restricts maintenance claims to minors or disabled major children, indicating that healthy major unmarried daughters fall outside its protective scope. 
• Summary Proceedings Limitation: Section 125 CrPC is designed for immediate relief through summary proceedings and cannot accommodate the complex considerations required for major daughter's maintenance claims. 
• Alternative Legal Remedy Available: Major unmarried daughters must pursue maintenance claims under Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which specifically addresses their maintenance rights through civil proceedings. 
• Jurisdictional Boundary Respected: Family Courts cannot exercise civil jurisdiction under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act while conducting summary criminal proceedings under Section 125 CrPC without proper conversion of the case. 
• Procedural Safeguard Maintained: The legal framework ensures that major daughters' maintenance claims undergo proper civil trial with evidence and pleadings, rather than being decided in expedited criminal maintenance proceedings meant for immediate relief.