Vijay Manohar Arbat v.
Kashi Rao Rajaram Sawai and Anr (1987) | 02 Dec 2024
Introduction
This is a landmark judgment relating to maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
This judgment was delivered by a 2-judge bench comprising of Justice MM Dutt and Justice GL Oza.
Facts
The appellant is a medical practitioner living in Kalyan, District Thane, and is the married daughter of Respondent No. 1, Kashirao Rajaram
Sawai.
Kashirao's first wife, the appellant's mother, passed away in 1948, after which he remarried and currently resides with his second wife.
Kashirao filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate in Kalyan, seeking maintenance of ₹500 per month from his daughter, citing
his inability to maintain himself.
The appellant raised a preliminary objection, arguing that Section 125(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) which allows
parents to claim maintenance, does not apply to fathers seeking support from daughters.
The Judicial Magistrate overruled her objection, holding that the application was valid under the law.
The appellant then appealed further using Special Leave, but the higher court dismissed her appeal.
Thus, the matter was before the Supreme Court.
Issue Involved
Whether a father can claim maintenance from a married daughter?
Observations
The Court made the following observations:
A father’s application for maintenance under Section 125(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against his married daughter is
valid and legally maintainable.
Section 125(1)(d) imposes a legal obligation on both sons and daughters to maintain their parents if the parents are unable to support
themselves.
The objective of Section 125 is to provide a quick legal remedy to prevent dependents from destitution and homelessness, serving a
larger social purpose.
Beyond legal provisions, Indian society places a moral duty on children—both sons and daughters—to support and care for their
parents, especially when they are elderly and incapable of self-support.
Though Section 125(1)(d) uses the pronoun "his," it does not exclude daughters from liability. Section 2(y) of the Criminal Procedure
Code and Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code clarify that the term "his" includes both genders.
Under Section 13(1) of the General Clauses Act, words denoting the masculine gender also include females unless the context
explicitly opposes such interpretation. Therefore, "his father or mother" in Section 125(1)(d) also includes "her father or mother."
For a parent to claim maintenance from a daughter, the court must ensure that the daughter has sufficient independent means, separate
from her husband’s income, and that the parent is genuinely unable to maintain themselves.
A daughter’s marriage does not absolve her of her responsibilities as a daughter. Parents who have only daughters and no sons should
not be left destitute due to societal or legal misconceptions about their daughters’ obligations.
The phrase "his father or mother" must be understood as including "her father or mother," ensuring equal responsibility of both sons
and daughters towards their parents.
Conclusion
This case is landmark as it lays down that maintenance can be claimed by a father from his married daughter.
