The court in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings should have entertained the application filed by the daughter on attaining majority for the reason that ultimately the applicant was entitled for maintenance
Proviso to Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) empowers the Magistrate to order father of a minor female child to make such allowance until she attains her majority.
A Revision Petition was filed against the order passed by Family Court whereby an application filed under Section 125(3) of the CrPC seeking grant of maintenance was rejected. The applicant was getting the maintenance since the time she had attained the age of 5 years. The maintenance was thereafter stopped by the father her daughter had attained majority. The impugned order held that the remedy under these circumstances for the daughter would lie under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
In revision the court held that the trial Court was not justified in taking such a strict view only on the ground that the daughter has attained the age of majority and that she in such circumstances should file another case under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
The court in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings should have entertained the application filed by the daughter for the reason that ultimately the applicant was entitled for maintenance irrespective of the fact whether she moves an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C or under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
[Kumari Shakutala vs. Mahesh Kumar Tandon]
(Chhattisgarh HC, 29.01.2014)