Court’s decision
The Kerala High Court, speaking through Justice A. Badharudeen, dismissed a revision petition filed by an unmarried Christian daughter who sought maintenance from her father under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court upheld the Family Court’s finding that a major Christian daughter is not entitled to claim maintenance unless she satisfies the statutory exception of being unable to maintain herself due to physical or mental abnormality or injury. After examining the pleadings, evidence and legal framework, the Court concluded that the petitioner failed to bring her case within the statutory exceptions.
The Court found that the petitioner was a healthy adult with no physical or mental disability and therefore did not qualify for maintenance under the CrPC. The Family Court had analysed the evidence regarding her age, academic qualifications and employability, and concluded that she was capable of maintaining herself. The High Court agreed with these conclusions. Emphasising a strict interpretation of Section 125, the Court further noted that the petitioner’s religious identity was relevant because Christian personal law does not recognise a continuing obligation on the father to maintain an adult unmarried daughter. Based on these reasons, the Court dismissed the revision petition definitively.
Facts
The petitioner, an unmarried Christian daughter, approached the Family Court claiming monthly maintenance from her father under Section 125. She contended that she lacked independent financial means and was dependent on her parent for basic sustenance. The Family Court examined her pleadings, evidence regarding her education and age, and the legal position applicable to the claim. It found that she had already attained majority and was not suffering from any physical or mental disability. Thus, the Family Court dismissed the maintenance petition.
The petitioner thereafter challenged the dismissal by invoking the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction. She argued that despite being an adult, she continued to depend on her father. The father opposed the revision and maintained that the daughter was competent to earn her livelihood and did not fall under the statutory exception.
Issues
The primary question was whether a major Christian daughter who is physically and mentally fit is entitled to claim maintenance from her father under Section 125. The secondary issue related to whether educational dependence alone could justify maintenance. The Court also had to examine whether the Family Court’s findings suffered from perversity or illegality warranting interference in revision. The broader question was the interaction between Section 125 CrPC and personal law principles governing the obligation to maintain adult daughters.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner argued that the Family Court erred in refusing maintenance merely because she was a major. She contended that she lacked gainful employment and did not possess sufficient means to support herself. According to her, the moral and legal obligation of a parent to support an unmarried daughter continued until she was able to establish financial security. She also argued that dependency arising from prolonged education should entitle her to relief and that courts should take a liberal approach in interpreting maintenance provisions.
The petitioner further submitted that the father’s financial ability was undisputed, and therefore denial of maintenance amounted to ignoring social realities. She urged the Court to adopt a purposive interpretation that protected vulnerable dependents.
Respondent’s arguments
The respondent argued that the claim was barred by the express wording of Section 125(1)(c), which permits maintenance to adult children only if they suffer from physical or mental abnormality or injury. He contended that the petitioner was a healthy adult capable of securing employment. The respondent maintained that Christian personal law did not impose a continuing obligation to maintain a major daughter and therefore the petitioner could not rely on general dependency principles.
The respondent further submitted that the Family Court’s factual findings were sound and supported by evidence regarding the petitioner’s age, education and employability. He contended that no ground for revisional interference existed.
Analysis of the law
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 125 of the CrPC, focusing on the special provision governing maintenance to major children. Under Section 125(1)(c), a major child—whether son or daughter—is entitled to maintenance only if they are by reason of physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain themselves. The Court stressed that this is a rigid statutory exception and must be strictly applied. It observed that Parliament deliberately carved out a narrow exception to prevent misuse of the provision.
The Court noted that broader notions of financial dependency or educational requirements cannot override the statutory text. For Christian daughters, personal law does not impose a continuing obligation on parents after majority, which further restricts maintenance claims under Section 125.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied on established precedents holding that major children cannot claim maintenance unless they satisfy the statutory disability exception. Judicial authorities interpreting Section 125 have consistently held that adult daughters, irrespective of personal law, are not entitled to maintenance unless they fall within the statutory exception. The Court also considered decisions distinguishing maintenance obligations under personal law from those under the CrPC, highlighting that personal law cannot expand the statutory scope of Section 125.
These precedents guided the High Court to conclude that both personal law and statutory law pointed to the same outcome—denial of maintenance.
Court’s reasoning
Justice A. Badharudeen held that the Family Court correctly applied the statutory test. The evidence showed that the petitioner was a major, physically fit and mentally sound. She had completed her education and possessed the capacity to earn an income. Thus, she did not meet the statutory requirement of disability. The Court emphasised that the jurisdiction under Section 125 is summary in nature and designed to provide immediate relief to children and dependents who cannot maintain themselves. Allowing financially able adults to claim maintenance would distort legislative intention.
The Court further clarified that revisional interference is justified only when the lower court’s finding is perverse or illegal. Since the Family Court’s reasoning was sound, the revision had to be dismissed.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision denying maintenance to the petitioner. It reiterated that a major Christian daughter without physical or mental disability is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125. The Court reaffirmed the legislative intent of restricting maintenance for adult children to exceptional situations. Finding no irregularity or perversity in the Family Court’s findings, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.
Implications
This judgment strengthens the position that adult children, including unmarried daughters, cannot rely on Section 125 to claim maintenance unless they fit the statutory criteria. It confirms that dependency alone is insufficient, and personal law considerations also limit claims by adult Christian daughters. The ruling is significant for family law practitioners, as it clarifies the stringent requirements applicable to maintenance claims by adult children. It also cautions litigants that revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reconsider factual findings merely because a different conclusion is possible.