Magistrates Have To Specify Whether Maintenance Is Ordered U/S 125 CrPC Or U/S 20(3) HAMA: Kerala HC On Jurisdiction Under Domestic Violence Act
|The Kerala High Court held that Magistrates dealing with a petition claiming maintenance under Section 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) have to specify whether the maintenance is ordered under Section 125 of the CrPC or Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).
The Bench reiterated that a father had the obligation to pay maintenance to a non-earning daughter till her marriage. The Court clarified that it was for a father to prove either of the said facts in order to get absolved from the obligation to pay maintenance.
A Single Bench of Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed, “If in recognition of the statutory right of the daughter under Section 20(3) of the Maintenance Act ordered the father to pay maintenance, that obligation can be ceased only on she marries or becomes an earning member. The court can order exemption only if the father proves such a disqualification of the daughter to receive maintenance. In that view of the matter, the orders of the courts below are incorrect.”
Advocate Subal J. Paul represented the petitioner, while Sr. P.P. Pushpalatha M.K. appeared for the respondents.
The daughter (petitioner) had filed for maintenance from her father when she was 14 years old. The trial court allowed the petition under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act, ordering the father to pay monthly maintenance to his daughter. Despite the petitioner reaching majority in 2012, the father continued paying the maintenance until 2015, when he sought exemption from further payments, arguing that his daughter had attained majority and was employed abroad.
The central issue revolved around whether the maintenance order was under Section 125 of the CrPC or Section 20(3) of the HAMA since one was a secular act and the other was personal law.
“An interesting question cropped up in this revision; whether an order directing a Hindu father to pay maintenance to his unmarried daughter under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V.Act has the character of an order for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code or maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Maintenance Act?” the Court remarked.
The Court stated that there was a lack of specificity in the original maintenance order, which did not clarify whether it was under CrPC or HAMA. “For the reason that the parties are Hindus, one cannot assume that the order of maintenance is in recognition of the right under the Maintenance Act, for, Section 125 of the Code is secular and applicable to all,” the Court added.
Consequently, the Bench held that “the Magistrates dealing with a petition claiming maintenance under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V.Act shall specify in the order under which provision; whether under Section 125 of the Code or under Section 20(3) of the Maintenance Act maintenance is ordered. Reminding the learned Magistrates dealing with matters coming under the D.V.Act of the above aspect, this petition is dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Shilpa v. K.K. Rajeevan & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:41790)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Subal J. Paul and Sheeba Thomas
Respondents: Sr. P.P. Pushpalatha M.K.; Advocates Amrin Fathima, Stefin Thomas, Kavya P.R. and Anjana Sanjay