A woman filed an appeal in the matter of abhilasha v parkash against the High Court’s ruling against her husband over support awarded to her and her three children, two sons and a daughter, in accordance with section 125 of the crpc. In this case, her younger daughter Abhilasha is the appellant.
The Judicial Magistrate denied her request for maintenance for her two children; however, her daughter’s claim was granted because she was a minor and could only receive maintenance after reaching majority in accordance with section 125 of the crpc.
abhilasha v parkash Case Facts
- On October 17, 2002, Mother, the respondent in this matter, filed an application under section 125 of the crpc. She filed a support claim for herself and her three children against her husband. She has one daughter and two sons. In the case, her younger daughter Abhilasha was the appellant and her husband was the respondent.
- The judicial magistrate invalidated all three claims under section 125 of the crpc. 1973 on February 16, 2011, with the exception of the appellant (Abhilasha), who was granted maintenance till she reached the age of majority.
- The criminal revision application was submitted by the appellant to the session court. which, on February 17, 2014, was dismissed. The court stated at the judgment session that in accordance with section 125 of the crpc.
- Only those kids “who (attain majority) where such child is, by virtue of physical or mental abnormality or injury, unable to maintain itself” are eligible to receive maintenance. With regard to the appellant, this is untrue. the justification for her maintenance entitlement till she reaches the majority.
- The applicant challenged the session court’s ruling in an appeal to the High Court under section 482 of crpc 1973, which was once more denied on February 16, 2018. This time, the applicant appealed to the Indian Supreme Court.
abhilasha v parkash Issues
- Whether the unmarried, majority-age appellant is entitled to support from the respondent under section 125 of the crpc even though she is not afflicted with any physical or mental impairments or injuries?
- Is it possible to overturn the decisions made by the Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Court Judge, which restricted the appellant’s ability to seek maintenance until she reached the age of majority, or until April 26, 2005, and thus made the respondent responsible for continuing to provide maintenance to his daughter even after she reached the age of majority, that is, after April 26, 2005, and she is not married?
Contentions by the Parties
Appellant:
- Acquired knowledge The appellant’s attorney contended that since the appellant was unable to support herself, she had a right to maintenance from her father, the respondent.
- She goes on to say that the applicant has reached the age of majority and is not suffering from any physical or mental injury or infirmity, hence the High Court erred in rejecting her plea and denying her the right to maintenance.
- She argued that the respondent is required to support his daughter, who is unable to support herself until she gets married, in accordance with section 20 of the hindu adoption and maintenance act, 1956. She used the Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata and Others case to bolster her claims.
- She argues that the appellant has a right to maintenance from the respondent, her father, because she is unemployed and unable to support herself.
Respondent:
- The respondent’s learned counsel contended that a daughter can only receive maintenance after reaching the age of majority if she is unable to support herself due to a physical or mental illness or injury. This is in accordance with section 125 of the crpc.
- He presented the Revisional Court’s findings, which did not indicate that the appellant is experiencing any physical, mental, or other abnormalities that would prevent her from supporting herself.
abhilasha v parkash Judgment
- According to Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the Supreme Court ruled that an unmarried Hindu daughter is entitled to maintenance from her father until she gets married.
- However, in order to receive the maintenance, the daughter must show that she is unable to support herself.
- To implement her freedoms, he should file an application under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act; however, in this case, the case was unmaintainable because the application was filed under Section 125 of the CrPC rather than section 20 of the hindu adoption and maintenance act. Only major children who are unable to support themselves because of a physical or mental impairment or injury are eligible for maintenance under section 125 of the crpc; the appellant does not meet this requirement.
- Subsequently, the Supreme Court discussed in detail the differences between section 20 of the hindu adoption and maintenance act and section 125 of the crpc.
- Even though section 20 of the hindu adoption and maintenance act has a greater extend and larger privilege that is not fixed in stone by a Civil Court, section 125 of the crpc provides timely assistance to a candidate in an outline case.
Frequently Asked Question
- Which coaching is best for RJS preparation?
Recognized “Jyoti Judiciary Coaching” provides RJS coaching in Jaipur and aids students in exam preparation. The best offline and online RJS coaching program in Jaipur, Jyoti Judiciary, enables a rational approach to RJS test preparation. Every subject and course necessary to pass the Rajasthan Judiciary Service Examinations is carefully covered in their curriculum.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
