ABHILASHA v. PARKASH & Ors.

#4. After enactment of Family Courts Act, 1984, a Family Court shall also have the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents. Family Courts shall have the jurisdiction only with respect to city or town whose population exceeds one million, where there is no Family Courts, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall have to be before the Magistrate of the First Class. In an area where the Family Court is not established, a suit or proceedings for maintenance including the proceedings under Section 20 of the Act, 1956 shall only be before the District Court or any subordinate Civil Court. There may be a case where the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as the suit under Section 20 of Act, 1956, in such eventuality, Family Court can exercise jurisdiction under both the Acts and in an appropriate case can grant maintenance to unmarried daughter even though A B C D E F G H ABHILASHA v. PARKASH & ORS. 247 she has become major enforcing her right under Section 20 of Act, 1956 so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. However the Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot pass such order. [Paras 32, 33][264-E-H; 265-A] Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata and Others (2002) 5 SCC 422 – relied on.

#5. The maintenance as contemplated under Act, 1956 is a larger concept as compared to concept of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Section 3(b) while defining maintenance gives an inclusive definition including marriage expenses. The purpose and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide immediate relief to applicant in a summary proceedings, whereas right under Section 20 read with Section 3(b) of Act, 1956 contains larger right, which needs determination by a Civil Court, hence for the larger claims as enshrined under Section 20, the proceedings need to be initiated under Section 20 of the Act and the legislature never contemplated to burden the Magistrate while exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to determine the claims contemplated by Act, 1956. [Paras 35, 36][265-D, G]

#6. An unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married relying on Section 20(3) of the Act, 1956, provided she pleads and proves that she is unable to maintain herself, for enforcement of which right her application/ suit has to be under Section 20 of Act, 1956. In facts of the present case the ends of justice be served by giving liberty to the appellant to take recourse to Section 20(3) of the Act, 1956, if so advised, for claiming any maintenance against her father. [Paras 38, 39] [267-B, C-D] Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal and Others (1969) 3 SCC 802 : [1970] 1 SCR 565; Ram Singh v. State AIR 1963 All 355; Nalini Ranjan v. Kiran Rani AIR 1965 Pat. 442; Mahabir Agarwalla v. Gita Roy [1962] 2 Cr. L.J.528; Mst. Zohara Khatoon v. Mohd. Ibrahim (1981) 2 SCC 509 : [1981] 2 SCR 910; Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav A B C D E F G H 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R. A B