Alternate Remedy U/S.20(3) Of HAMA No Bar To Unmarried Major Daughter’s Claim To Maintenance U/S.125 CrPC: Bombay High Court

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 27 October 2026

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

The Bombay High Court held that an unmarried major daughter's claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not barred by the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. This decision was made while considering a father's revision against a Family Court's maintenance order.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

The availability of an alternate remedy under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, does not preclude an unmarried major daughter from seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates representing unmarried major daughters seeking maintenance should consider filing applications under Section 125 CrPC, as the existence of a remedy under HAMA will not be a bar. Litigants should be aware that both avenues for maintenance may be pursued, offering flexibility in legal strategy.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Section 125 CrPC provides a distinct remedy for maintenance.
2Section 20(3) HAMA is an alternate, not exclusive, remedy.
3Unmarried major daughters can pursue maintenance under CrPC despite HAMA provisions.

The Legal Issue The Bombay High Court addressed a revision petition filed by a father challenging a Family Court's order granting maintenance to his two children. The core legal question was whether the availability of an alternate remedy for maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), would bar an unmarried major daughter from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

Court's Reasoning The Bombay High Court held that the remedies provided under Section 125 CrPC and Section 20(3) HAMA are distinct and operate in different spheres. Section 125 CrPC is a summary procedure designed to prevent destitution, while Section 20(3) HAMA provides for a civil remedy for maintenance. The court reasoned that the existence of one remedy does not automatically exclude the other, especially when the purpose and scope of the provisions differ. Therefore, an unmarried major daughter is entitled to seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, irrespective of the availability of a remedy under HAMA.

What Follows The Bombay High Court upheld the Family Court's judgment granting maintenance to the children. The father's revision petition was dismissed, affirming that the daughter's claim under Section 125 CrPC was valid and not barred by Section 20(3) HAMA.