FACTS IN BRIEF :- Dealing with Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the issue involved in the present appeal was whether Respondent were entitled to claim maintenance from the appellant. The Appellant was a medical practitioner and the married daughter of Respondent by his first wife. Her mother died in 1948. Thereafter, the Respondent remarried and was living with his second wife. He filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate claiming maintenance from the appellant on the ground that he was unable to maintain himself.
ARGUMENTS:- The A ppellant had argued that under clause (d) of Section 125(1) a father was not entitled to claim maintenance from his daughter whether married or out. She contended that the use of the word “his” in clause (d) clearly indicated that it was only the son who was burdened with the obligation to maintain his parents. It was submitted that if the legislature had intended that the maintenance could be claimed from the daughter as well, it would not have used the pronoun 'his'.
JUDGMENT:- The Apex Court held that Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. conferred power on the Magistrate to order a person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of some of his close relations like wife, children, father and mother under certain circumstances. The Court held that while there was no doubt that it was the moral obligation of a son or a daughter to maintain his or her parents, it was not desirable that even though a son or a daughter had sufficient means, his or her parents would starve. The use of the word “his” did not exclude the parents claiming maintenance from their daughter. The Court took clue from Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1) of the General Clauses Act wherein “he” was interpreted to include “she” as well. Therefore the Court held that the pronoun 'his' as used in clause (d) of Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. included both male and female and thus the parents were entitled to claim maintenance against their daughter under the said Section provided that other conditions of the Section were fulfilled.
FOR COMMON MAN:- This case clearly lays down that a daughter, even after her marriage, does not cease to be a daughter of the father or mother. It is the moral obligation of the children to maintain their parents and this has been concretized into a legal duty by Section 125(1) (d) of Cr.P.C which imposes a legal duty on both the son and daughter to maintain their father or mother who are unable to maintain themselves.
0 Comments