Best Divorce Lawyer in Delhi

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

The Allahabad High Court has held that if the application has been filed under Section 125 CrPC by an unmarried daughter after attaining majority, it can be converted into a suit under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and after dealing with the application as suit for maintenance and adopting the procedure as prescribed under the provision of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the Court can order for maintenance to avoid multiplicity of suits. The Criminal Revision was filed against the order passed in a case registered under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by the Principal Judge, Family Court, District Sultanpur. The Single Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar stated, “In view of above, it cannot be disputed that the application filed under Section 125 CrPC can be dealt with and the maintenance can be granted under Section 20 of the Act of 1956 by the Family Courts, if the unmarried daughter claiming the maintenance has become major. Thus, in case during pendency of the application under Section 125 CrPC, a daughter becomes major, the maintenance can be allowed to her invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 1956, but in the present case, the application was filed by the daughter i.e. respondent no. 2 after attaining the age of majority, therefore, it was not a case in which his daughter had become major during pendency of the application and maintenance could have been awarded in the same proceeding, that too without considering the factors for determination of maintenance under Section 20(3) read with Sections 23 and 24 of Act of 1956.However, since both the powers can be exercised by the Family Court, therefore, this Court is of the view that if the application has been filed under Section 125 CrPC, it can be got converted into a suit under Section 20 of the Act of 1956 as it is to be dealt by the same court and after converting under the relevant provision and dealing with the application as suit for maintenance and after adopting the procedure as prescribed and upon consideration of pleadings and evidence on record under the provision of Act of 1956, if the Family Court finds that the case for maintenance is made out, the court can order for maintenance to avoid multiplicity of suits, but not on the basis of summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. The remedy for challenging the order passed under both the proceedings are also separate as discussed above. ”

Background The second respondent had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance from the revisionist. The second respondent-daughter of the revisionist was major in age at the time of filing of the application and it was disclosed in the application under Section 125 CrPC. Arguments The sole argument advanced by the revisionist was that the second respondent was major in age and the maintenance could not have been allowed in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. It was further submitted that if the court was of the view that a major daughter can claim maintenance under Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the proceedings could have been converted and after trial as a civil suit in accordance with law, the order could have been passed.

Reasoning On a perusal of the provisions of the CrPC, the Family Courts Act and Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956, the Bench said, “...a suit or proceeding for maintenance under Section 20(3) of Act of 1956 is to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed under CPC and any other law applicable on such suits and proceedings and for the said purpose the Family Courts shall exercise the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of suits under CPC and proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, which is under Chapter IX of CPC, is to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed under CrPC and exercising the jurisdiction as Magistrate of First Class and accordingly, the execution is to be made of the decrees and orders and separate remedies can be availed for challenging the orders in respective proceedings.”

The Bench explained that the Family Court, while exercising both the powers, has jurisdiction to decide under Section 125 CrPC as well as the suit under Section 20 of the Act of 1956 and therefore, the Family Court can exercise jurisdiction under both the act and in appropriate case, can grant maintenance to married daughter, even if she has become major under Section 20 of the Act of 1956. The Bench also made it clear that if the application has been filed under Section 125 CrPC, it can be converted into a suit under Section 20 of the Act of 1956 as it is to be dealt by the same court and after converting under the relevant provision and dealing with the application as suit for maintenance and after adopting the procedure as prescribed and upon consideration of pleadings and evidence on record under the provision of Act of 1956, if the Family Court finds that the case for maintenance is made out, the court can order for maintenance to avoid multiplicity of suits, but not on the basis of summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Family Court, while deciding the application under Section 125 CrPC in the present case could not have allowed the maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Act of 1956 without considering the relevant factors to be considered. Allowing the Revision and setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, the Bench ordered, “The matter is remitted back to the concerned Family Court, where the parties shall appear on 18.08.2025 on which date an application may be moved by the respondent no. 2 for converting the application under Section 125 CrPC into a suit under Section 20(3) of the Act of 1956 and the Family Court shall consider and pass appropriate order.”

Cause Title: Anurag Pandey v. State Of U.P (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:46199)