Can Fathers Be Forced to Pay Maintenance to Adult Daughters? Allahabad HC Explains the Right Provision

In a significant judgment clarifying the scope of maintenance claims by adult children, the Allahabad High Court recently set aside a Family Court order that had granted monthly maintenance to a major daughter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Court held that such claims must instead be adjudicated under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and directed the Family Court to rehear the matter accordingly.

The bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar said, 

"If the application has been filed under Section 125 CrPC, it can be got converted into a suit under Section 20 of the Act of 1956 as it is to be dealt by the same court and after converting under the relevant provision and dealing with the application as suit for maintenance and after adopting the procedure as prescribed and upon consideration of pleadings and evidence on record under the provision of Act of 1956, if the Family Court finds that the case for maintenance is made out, the court can order for maintenance to avoid multiplicity of suits, but not on the basis of summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC."

Court was dealing with a criminal revision petition filed by a father who had challenged a July 2024 order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur, which had directed him to pay Rs.10,000 per month to his daughter.

The dispute arose after the unmarried daughter sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court had allowed her plea, holding that her father was obliged to provide for her. The father, however, contended before the High Court that Section 125 CrPC permits maintenance only for minor children, or in limited cases, for major children who are unable to support themselves due to physical or mental disabilities. Since his daughter was a major when she filed her application and did not fall under these exceptions, her claim under Section 125 could not be sustained.

The father's  counsel further argued that the Family Court had misapplied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Abhilasha vs. Parkash (2021), which had clarified the distinction between maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. According to the counsel, the Family Court could not have granted relief under the 1956 Act while adjudicating a petition under Section 125 CrPC without converting the proceedings.

Appearing for the daughter, her counsel admitted the legal position but maintained that she was in genuine need of financial support. He suggested that the order be set aside and the case remitted to the Family Court to be decided under the appropriate provision of Hindu law to avoid multiple proceedings.

The High Court agreed. After examining the statutory framework, Justice Kumar noted that Section 125 CrPC provides a limited and summary remedy to ensure immediate support for wives, minor children, and dependent parents. In contrast, Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act creates a broader obligation on parents to maintain an unmarried daughter who is unable to sustain herself. Such claims, the judge explained, are civil in nature and require a full trial, not summary proceedings.

Court held that while Family Courts are vested with jurisdiction under both CrPC and the 1956 Act, they must follow the correct procedure depending on the nature of the claim. “The Family Court, while deciding the application under Section 125 CrPC in the present case, could not have allowed maintenance under Section 20(3) without considering the relevant factors,” Justice Kumar observed.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the Sultanpur Family Court’s order of July 30, 2024, and remitted the matter back. It directed that the application under Section 125 CrPC may be converted into a suit under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, with a proper trial to follow. Both parties were ordered to appear before the Family Court, and the case was directed to be decided expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Case Title: Anurag Pandey vs State of UP and Another

Order Date: July 31, 2025

Bench: Justice Rajnish Kumar