SANJAY J. PHAGNEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Application is moved by Applicant-father under the provisions of Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as ' Cr.P.C .' for the sake of brevity) questioning the order dated 12/07/2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ulhasnagar thereby allowing the Application Exh. 55 for grant of interim maintenance moved under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate has directed the payment of maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the Respondent-daughter who was born on 04/09/1998 from the date of the order i.e. from July 2019. Present Applicant-father, feeling aggrieved, preferred Revision being Criminal Revision No. 96 of 2019 pursuant to provisions of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The Revision came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalyan vide impugned order dated 28/11/2019. As such, this Application.

(2.) Shri. Runwal, learned counsel for the Applicant-father would invite attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. particularly clause (b) & (c) of Sub- Section 1 . According to him, father has an obligation to maintain the daughter who is not married, however, the said provision does not confer any right in major daughter to claim interim maintenance after such daughter attains majority and if she is physically or mentally not suffering from any abnormality or injury. Shri. Runwal would also invite attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and by relying on the recent Judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Abhilasha Vs. Parkash and Others reported in [2020 SCC OnLine SC 736] he would contend that major daughter ought not to have been granted interim maintenance pursuant to provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as same goes contrary to the very scheme and object of the said provision.

(3.) While countering the aforesaid submissions, Respondent- daughter who is appearing in person has urged that the act of Trial Court of not deciding the Application for maintenance for years together cannot be viewed or come to the help of the Applicant particularly when Statute contemplates an obligation on the Applicant-father to pay maintenance to a minor daughter pursuant to the provisions of Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C . According to her, since the Magistrate has failed to decide the interim maintenance Application within 60 days, same has caused legal injury to her on the issue of her claim of maintenance. She had tried to demonstrate from the factual matrix of the case that father i.e. Applicant herein has refused to take her custody or has abandoned her custody and same reflects about his neglect to maintain the family member or the dependent like Respondent-daughter. The Judgment in the matter of Abhilasha [cited supra] is sought to be distinguished on the factual issues such as proceedings were decided by the Magistrate comparatively at much earlier stage than the one in the present case and land handed over by father of Abhilasha towards her maintenance. As such, according to party-in-person, even if she has attained majority on 04/09/2016, the Judgment in the matter of Abhilasha [cited supra] or the failure on the part of the learned Magistrate in deciding the Application within the statutory period shall not take away her claim of interim maintenance. As such, she has sought dismissal of the Application.