Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

Anurag Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another, 2025

The High Court drew a clear distinction between the summary relief mechanism of Section 125 CrPC and the civil nature of rights enforceable under Section 20(3) of HAMA.

Allahabad High Court·2 September 2025
Anurag Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another, 2025
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Allahabad High Court

Date of Decision

2 September 2025

Judges

Justice Rajnish Kumar

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) Sections 23 and 24 of HAMA

Facts of the Case

  • A major unmarried daughter filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from her father.

  • The Family Court allowed the application and directed the father to pay ₹10,000 per month, despite the fact that the daughter was a major when the application was filed.

  • The Family Court relied on Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 to justify the order.

  • The father (revisionist) challenged this order before the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether a major unmarried daughter can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?

  2. Whether the Family Court was correct in awarding maintenance to a major daughter under Section 125 proceedings by invoking Section 20(3) of HAMA?

  3. Whether such a claim should instead be pursued as a civil suit under Section 20(3) of HAMA?

  4. Can a Family Court convert a Section 125 CrPC proceeding into a civil suit under HAMA?

Judgement

  • The Allahabad High Court set aside the Family Court's judgment.

  • It held that a mentally and physically fit major unmarried daughter cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

  • Such claims must be pursued under Section 20(3) of HAMA, which requires the filing of a civil suit.

  • However, if the daughter becomes a major during the pendency of a Section 125 CrPC application, then the court may allow maintenance by invoking Section 20(3) of HAMA in the same proceeding.

  • Since the daughter in this case was already a major at the time of filing, the Family Court had erred in granting relief under Section 125 CrPC.

  • The matter was remitted back to the Family Court to allow the daughter to convert the application into a suit under Section 20(3) of HAMA.

  • The Court directed that such an application for conversion should be considered and decided on the same day or within two weeks.

Held

  • A major unmarried daughter, who is not physically or mentally incapacitated, cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

  • Her remedy lies under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which requires a civil suit, not a summary proceeding.

  • The Family Courts cannot grant maintenance under HAMA within Section 125 CrPC proceedings unless the daughter attained majority during the pendency of the case.

  • The Family Court’s decision was legally unsustainable and was set aside.

Analysis

  • The High Court drew a clear distinction between the summary relief mechanism of Section 125 CrPC and the civil nature of rights enforceable under Section 20(3) of HAMA.

  • It relied on the precedent of Abhilasha v. Parkash (2020) where the Supreme Court clarified that major daughters must approach civil courts under HAMA, not under CrPC.

  • The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural safeguards and proper pleadings are necessary for determining maintenance under civil law.

  • The ruling protects judicial consistency by preventing the misuse or confusion of jurisdictions between summary criminal proceedings and detailed civil suits.

  • The court upheld the importance of due process by mandating conversion into a civil suit for such maintenance claims.

MaintenanceWomenMarriageCivilcivil disputeCriminal