Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.
1. Whether a major unmarried Hindu daughter shall be entitled for maintenance in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the question which falls for determination in the present case under the following circumstances?.
2. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 who happen to be the mother and daughter, failed application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The claim was laid against the husband and father respectively. According to the wife she was in the employment of the State Government but after her retirement she has not got any pensionary benefit and as such unable to maintain herself and her daughter. The petitioner who happens to be the husband of opposite party No. 2 and father of opposite party No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the father) resisted their prayer on the ground that the wife had sufficient means to maintain herself from the retirement benefits, which she shall be entitled on superannuation and opposite party No. 2 being a major daughter, she is not entitled for the maintenance.
3. During the pendency of the application, a prayer was made for grant of interim maintenance and the Principal Judge, Patna by order dated 24-4-2002 passed in Maintenance Case No. 52 (M) of 2001 rejected the prayer of the wife but directed for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2000 per month by way of interim maintenance to the daughter. While doing so it has been held that the daughter is major who is not employed and hence the father is liable to maintain herself.
4. Mr. Partha Sarthy appearing on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 raises a preliminary objection and contends that the present revision application has been preferred against an interim order, which is interlocutory in nature and as such, in view of Section 397(2) of the code, the revisional power cannot be exercised and on this ground alone the application filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.
5. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that the order being completely without jurisdiction, same can be interfered with by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. However, to avoid any technical difficulty, Mr. Jha prays to convert this application into an application under Section 482 of the Code. Nothing prevents this Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of the process of the Court in relation to even an interlocutory order, Hence I proceed to consider this application into an application under Section 482 of the Code and decline to reject the prayer on the ground urged by Mr. Partha Sarthy.
6. Mr. Jha contends that condition precedent for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code is failure of the parents to maintain legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not who are unable to maintain himself and in the face of the clear and unambiguous language of Section 125(1)(b) of the Code a major unmarried daughter is not entitled for maintenance. Section 125(1)(b) of the Code which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows:--
'125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents:--
(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
(2) A Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in Clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.'
It is contended that from a plain language of the aforesaid provision it is evident
that the obligation to maintain is only in regard to minor daughter and the same cannot be extended to unmarried major daughter. Mr. Jha highlights that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, susceptible to only one meaning, I am bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of its consequence. It is contended that the legislature in its wisdom intended to give this benefit only to the minor daughter and as such I have no option than to expound the words of the statute in its natural and ordinary sense and hold that unmarried major daughter is not entitled for grant of maintenance. Mr. Partha Sarthy submits that to understand the intention of the legislature one cannot lose sight of the fact that Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act recognises the right of a girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage. Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption Maintenance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads as follows:--'
20. Maintenance of children and aged parents:--
'(3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself of herself out of his or her own earnings or other property.'
7. Thus from reading of Section 125(1)(b) of the Act it is evident that former does not provide for maintenance to a major unmarried daughter whereas later does so. Thus there are two statutes which make provision for grant of maintenance. In my opinion when two statutes are dealing with the allied subjects both have to be read as complimentary to each other. If such a rule is applied same will avoid any apparent contradiction between the different statues dealing with the same subject, It would not be a proper construction of law to hold that under Code a major unmarried daughter would not be entitled to maintenance, but the Act governing the same field, major unmarried daughter would be entitled for maintenance. When I apply the said rule of construction is evident that the right of major unmarried girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage flows from the combined reading of Section 125 of the Code and 20(3) of the Act.
8. A learned Single Judge of this Court had the occasion to consider this question in little detail in the case of Yugeshwar Nath Mishra v. Arpana Kumari and Anr., (2002) (4) PLJR 476 and in the said case it has been held as follows:--
'14. It two statues grant the same relief then both the provisions have to be read in harmony, not in contradiction. That is to say, that it would not be a proper construction of law to hold that under the statute a dependent (read unmarried daughter, minor or major) would be entitled to maintenance but, in other statute providing for the same relief, that dependent would be denied the relief of maintenance on the ground that she was a major. On similar premises their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Noor Saba Khatoon (supra) had held that an unmarried Muslim female child would be entitled to maintenance though application was filed under Section 125 of the Code.
9. The Supreme Court had the occasion to consider this question in the case of Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata and Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 422) in which it has been held as follows:--
'Applying the principle to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is manifest that the right of a major girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized in Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the judgment/order passed by the learned single Judge for maintaining the order passed by the Family Court which is based on a combined reading of Section 125 Cr. P.C. and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act. For the reasons aforestated We are of the view that on facts and in the circumstances of the case no interference with the impugned judgment/order of the High Court is called for.'
10. Thus the principle and the precedent recognise the right of a major unmarried daughter to get maintenance and the same cannot be denied only on the ground that the daughter had attained majority. Hence J answer the question posed at the outset in affirmative and hold that major unmarried daughter is entitled to claim maintenance.
11. To put the record straight Mr. Jha attempted to argue that petitioner does not have sufficient means and the major daughter is able to maintain herself and as such the order granting maintenance is fit to be set aside by this Court. I am not going into this question in detail as the order impugned in the present application is an interim order and final order is yet to be passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate prima-facie being satisfied that petitioner has sufficient means and the major unmarried daughter is unable to maintain herself, passed an order for grant of interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceeding. Any adjudication by me on these issues shall prejudice either party, hence I refrain from going to these questions in the present application.
In the result I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed accordingly.