Maintenance for Major Unmarried Daughters in India: A Jurisprudential Analysis

Introduction

The Indian legal system, through a combination of secular statutes and personal laws, addresses the financial support of dependents. A significant area of legal discourse concerns the entitlement of a major unmarried daughter to claim maintenance from her parents. While societal norms often presume parental responsibility extending until a daughter's marriage, the legal framework presents complexities, particularly in the interplay between Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and personal laws like the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). This article critically examines the legal provisions and judicial pronouncements governing the maintenance rights of major unmarried daughters in India, tracing the evolution of jurisprudence and highlighting the current legal position.

Statutory Framework Governing Maintenance

The primary statutory provisions concerning maintenance for children, including daughters, are found in the CrPC and, for Hindus, in HAMA.

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 125 CrPC provides a secular, summary remedy for neglected wives, children, and parents to claim maintenance. With respect to children, Section 125(1)(c) CrPC allows a Magistrate to order maintenance for a legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, if such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, unable to maintain itself. Generally, the obligation towards a child ceases upon attaining majority unless this specific condition of disability is met. The Supreme Court in Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim (1997 SCC 6 233) emphasized the beneficial nature of Section 125 CrPC, stating that its effect cannot be defeated except through clear statutory provisions and that a father's obligation to maintain minor children is absolute.

Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

For Hindus, HAMA codifies the obligation of maintenance. Section 20(1) of HAMA imposes an obligation on a Hindu to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children. Crucially, Section 20(3) HAMA extends this obligation specifically to unmarried daughters: "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 parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property." This provision clearly mandates a Hindu parent to maintain an unmarried daughter even after she attains majority, provided she is unable to maintain herself, until her marriage.

Personal Laws of Other Communities

Under Muslim personal law, a father has an obligation to maintain his daughters until they are married, provided they are unable to maintain themselves. The interplay of this personal law obligation with Section 125 CrPC for major unmarried daughters has been a subject of judicial interpretation, as seen in cases like Mustakim v. State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, 2015) and the reference in Muhammed Shaji Petitioner v. State Of Kerala (Kerala High Court, 2023).

Judicial Evolution and Key Precedents

The judiciary has played a pivotal role in interpreting these statutory provisions, leading to an evolving understanding of a major unmarried daughter's right to maintenance.

The "Combined Reading" Approach and Jagdish Jugtawat

For a considerable period, courts often adopted a pragmatic approach, particularly in cases involving Hindu daughters. The Supreme Court in Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata And Others (2002 SCC 5 422) upheld an order granting maintenance to a major unmarried daughter. The Court reasoned that since Section 20(3) of HAMA recognized the right of an unmarried daughter to be maintained by her father until her marriage if she is unable to maintain herself, an order under Section 125 CrPC could be sustained to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Court observed, "it is manifest that the right of a minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized in Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the 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 CrPC and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act."

This ruling was followed by several High Courts. For instance, the Rajasthan High Court in Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat v. Smt. Manjulata & Others (2000), which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, and later in SMT SUNITA AND ORS v. SANTOSH SHARMA (2017), upheld maintenance to major unmarried daughters on this basis. Similarly, the Patna High Court in Subhas Roy Choudhary v. State Of Bihar & Ors. (2003 SCC ONLINE PAT 1083) and the Uttarakhand High Court in Leela Devi v. Harish Chandra (2011 SCC ONLINE UTT 1927) also relied on Jagdish Jugtawat (SC) to grant maintenance to major unmarried daughters under Section 125 CrPC, considering the underlying right under HAMA.

The Landmark Clarification in Abhilasha (S) v. Parkash And Others (S)

The legal landscape was significantly clarified by the Supreme Court in Abhilasha (S) v. Parkash And Others (S) (2020 SCC ONLINE SC 736). The Court meticulously analyzed the scope of Section 125 CrPC vis-à-vis Section 20 HAMA. It held that a Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 CrPC cannot grant maintenance to an unmarried daughter who has attained majority *unless* she is unable to maintain herself due to physical or mental abnormality or injury, as stipulated in Section 125(1)(c) CrPC.

The Court in Abhilasha (SC) stated:

"The provision of Section 20 of Act, 1956 cast clear statutory obligation on a Hindu to maintain his unmarried daughter who is unable to maintain herself... The judgment of this Court in Jagdish Jugtawat (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... However the Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot pass such order." (Abhilasha (S) v. Parkash And Others (S), 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 736, paras 31, 33).

The Court distinguished the powers of a Magistrate from those of a Family Court. It clarified that a Family Court, which can exercise jurisdiction under both Chapter IX of CrPC and personal laws like HAMA (as per Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984), *can* grant maintenance to an unmarried major daughter by invoking Section 20(3) HAMA to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, as was done in Jagdish Jugtawat (SC). However, a Magistrate, whose powers are confined to Section 125 CrPC, cannot do so unless the specific conditions of Section 125(1)(c) are met. The proper recourse for an unmarried Hindu daughter (not suffering from the specified disabilities) who has attained majority and is unable to maintain herself is to file a suit or proceedings under Section 20 HAMA before a competent Civil Court or Family Court.

Post-Abhilasha Judicial Application

High Courts have subsequently applied the principles laid down in Abhilasha (SC). The Bombay High Court in MURLIDHAR KRUSHNARAO VIRULKAR v. NEHA D/O KRUSHNARAO VIRULKAR (2024) reiterated that a Magistrate under Section 125 CrPC cannot grant maintenance to an unmarried daughter unable to maintain herself without physical or mental abnormality, but a Family Court could exercise jurisdiction under Section 20(3) HAMA. Similarly, the Gujarat High Court in MAHESHBHAI VAMANBHAI BAVISKAR v. ASHABEN MAHESHBHAI BAVISKAR (2024) discussed both Jagdish Jugtawat (SC) and Abhilasha (SC), affirming the Family Court's capacity to grant such maintenance to avoid multiplicity, drawing power from HAMA.

Interpretations Regarding "Physical or Mental Abnormality or Injury"

Some earlier High Court decisions had adopted a liberal interpretation of "physical or mental abnormality or injury" under Section 125 CrPC. For instance, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Satish Kumar Petitioner v. State Of Punjab S (2004) opined that if an unmarried daughter is unable to maintain herself due to illiteracy or unemployment, such a situation could be deemed her physical or mental abnormality. However, the stricter interpretation in Abhilasha (SC) regarding the distinct pathways of Section 125 CrPC and Section 20 HAMA suggests that mere unemployment or lack of financial independence, without an underlying physical or mental abnormality or injury, would not suffice for a major daughter to claim maintenance from a Magistrate under Section 125 CrPC. The remedy would lie under personal law.

Maintenance for Major Unmarried Daughters under Muslim Law

The situation for major unmarried daughters under Muslim law seeking maintenance via Section 125 CrPC presents its own nuances. While Noor Saba Khatoon (SC) affirmed the rights of *minor* Muslim children under Section 125 CrPC, its direct applicability to major daughters is limited. The Kerala High Court in Muhammed Shaji Petitioner v. State Of Kerala (2023) noted conflicting Division Bench views on whether a major Muslim unmarried daughter can claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 CrPC if her inability to maintain herself is not due to physical/mental abnormality, or if personal law obligations can be enforced via Section 125 CrPC. The Allahabad High Court in Mustakim v. State Of U.P. (2015) suggested that an order granting maintenance to an unmarried Muslim major daughter, though perhaps not strictly justified under Section 125 CrPC, might not be interfered with to prevent multiplicity of proceedings if she has a right under personal law.

Analysis of Key Legal Points

Jurisdictional Distinctions: Magistrate v. Family Court

The judgment in Abhilasha (SC) underscores the critical importance of the forum. A Magistrate's powers under Section 125 CrPC are circumscribed by the text of the statute. A Family Court, by virtue of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has broader jurisdiction, encompassing powers of a Magistrate under Chapter IX CrPC as well as jurisdiction in suits or proceedings relating to maintenance under personal laws. This dual jurisdiction allows Family Courts to adopt a more holistic approach, as recognized in Jagdish Jugtawat (SC) and reaffirmed in Abhilasha (SC), to prevent multiplicity of litigation.

The "Unable to Maintain Herself" Criterion

The condition that the daughter must be "unable to maintain herself" is central to both Section 125(1)(c) CrPC (for major daughters with disabilities) and Section 20(3) HAMA (for unmarried daughters generally). This is a question of fact to be determined in each case, considering her income, property, and necessary expenses.

Avoiding Multiplicity of Proceedings

The rationale of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, which underpinned Jagdish Jugtawat (SC), remains a valid judicial consideration. However, Abhilasha (SC) has clarified that this principle cannot be used by a Magistrate to expand jurisdiction beyond the explicit terms of Section 125 CrPC. It is primarily the Family Court that can leverage its wider jurisdiction to grant composite relief.

Legislative Intent and Nature of Remedy

Section 125 CrPC is designed to provide a swift, summary remedy to prevent vagrancy and destitution. Personal laws like HAMA, on the other hand, define substantive rights and obligations. The Supreme Court in Abhilasha (SC) has sought to maintain the distinct character of these remedies while allowing for their consolidated adjudication by Family Courts where permissible.

Conclusion

The legal position regarding maintenance for major unmarried daughters in India has been substantially crystallized by the Supreme Court's decision in Abhilasha (S) v. Parkash And Others (S). For Hindu daughters, a clear right to maintenance from their parents exists under Section 20(3) of HAMA if they are unmarried and unable to maintain themselves, enforceable through a Civil Court or a Family Court. A Magistrate, acting under Section 125 CrPC, can grant maintenance to a major daughter (Hindu or otherwise) only if she establishes that her inability to maintain herself is due to a physical or mental abnormality or injury.

Family Courts, possessing jurisdiction under both CrPC and personal laws (for matters specified in the Family Courts Act), are empowered to grant maintenance to major unmarried Hindu daughters by invoking Section 20(3) HAMA, thereby avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. For daughters from other religious communities, particularly Muslim daughters, the application of Section 125 CrPC for maintenance post-majority (without statutory disability) continues to be guided by specific High Court interpretations, sometimes pragmatically allowing claims if supported by personal law to avoid multiple litigations, though this area may benefit from further authoritative pronouncements by the Supreme Court or legislative clarification.

Ultimately, the choice of the correct legal provision and forum is paramount for a major unmarried daughter seeking maintenance. The jurisprudence reflects a careful balancing act by the courts: upholding the statutory limitations of summary procedures like Section 125 CrPC, while ensuring that substantive rights under personal laws are effectively enforced, preferably through a consolidated process in Family Courts where available.