Major Unmarried Daughter Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Despite Alternative Remedy Under HAMA: Bombay High Court

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

Published 25 October 2026

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

The Bombay High Court, in a decision by Justice Rajesh S. Patil, held that a major unmarried daughter can claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, even if an alternative remedy is available under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The court clarified that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar a claim under CrPC.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

A major unmarried daughter is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the availability of an alternative remedy under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, does not preclude such a claim.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates representing major unmarried daughters seeking maintenance should consider filing applications under Section 125 CrPC, as the existence of remedies under personal laws like HAMA will not be a bar. Litigants should be aware that the CrPC provides a distinct and accessible avenue for maintenance claims, irrespective of other statutory provisions.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Major unmarried daughters can seek maintenance under CrPC Section 125.
2Availability of an alternative remedy under HAMA does not bar a CrPC Section 125 claim.
3Section 125 CrPC provides a distinct and independent remedy for maintenance.

The Legal Issue The Bombay High Court addressed whether a major unmarried daughter could claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), despite the availability of an alternative remedy under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). The question arose in the context of a father challenging a maintenance order, arguing that the daughter, being a major, should pursue remedies under HAMA instead of CrPC.

Court's Reasoning Justice Rajesh S. Patil of the Bombay High Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy under HAMA does not preclude a major unmarried daughter from seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The court reasoned that Section 125 CrPC provides a distinct and independent remedy for maintenance, intended to prevent destitution. The court clarified that the provisions of CrPC and HAMA operate in different spheres and the availability of one does not automatically bar the other. The court emphasized that the purpose of Section 125 CrPC is to provide a summary remedy for maintenance.

What Follows This ruling clarifies that major unmarried daughters can continue to seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (or Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, counsel should confirm which applies), irrespective of whether they have an option to claim maintenance under personal laws like HAMA. The father's challenge to the maintenance order was dismissed, affirming the daughter's right to maintenance under CrPC. This decision ensures that the summary remedy under CrPC remains accessible for eligible claimants.