SHILPA Vs. RAJEEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question cropped up in this revision; whether an order directing a Hindu father to pay maintenance to his unmarried daughter under Sec. 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V.Act) has the character of an order for maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) or maintenance under Sec. 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Maintenance Act)?

(2.) The petitioner is the daughter of the respondent. The petitioner, through her mother, filed C.M.P.No.3755 of 2009 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence) Court, Ernakulam claiming maintenance. She was aged 14 years at that time. The Magistrate in exercise of the powers under Sec. 20(1)(d) of the D.V.Act ordered the respondent to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/-. An appeal was filed by the respondent, but it was unsuccessful. She attained majority on 02.07.2012. However, the respondent continued to pay the amount of maintenance till April, 2015. He then filed C.M.P.No.2415 of 2015 seeking to exempt him from making continued payment of maintenance.

(3.) The contentions of the respondent were two fold: the petitioner attained majority, whereby the liability of the respondent to pay maintenance ceased and that the petitioner went abroad and has been earning sufficient income from her employment. The petitioner did not dispute the date of attaining majority, but contended that as long as she remained unmarried and incomeless, she was entitled to get the monthly maintenance. The learned Magistrate did not accept the contentions of the petitioner. The petition was allowed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Sessions Court. Challenging the said orders, this revision petition has been filed under Sec. 397 of the Code.