Facts in Brief

Dealing with Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the issue involved in this appeal was whether the Respondent was entitled to claim maintenance from the Appellant. The Appellant was a medical practitioner and the married daughter of the Respondent by his first wife. Her mother died in 1948. Thereafter, the Respondent remarried and was living with his second wife. He filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate claiming maintenance from the Appellant on the ground that he was unable to maintain himself.

Arguments

The Appellant argued that under clause (d) of Section 125(1), a father was not entitled to claim maintenance from his daughter, whether married or not. She contended that the use of the word “his” in clause (d) clearly indicated that it was only the son who was burdened with the obligation to maintain his parents. It was submitted that if the legislature had intended that maintenance could be claimed from the daughter as well, it would not have used the pronoun “his.”

Judgment

The Apex Court held that Section 125(1) CrPC conferred power on the Magistrate to order a person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of certain close relations — such as wife, children, father and mother — under certain circumstances. The Court held that while there was no doubt that it was the moral obligation of a son or a daughter to maintain his or her parents, it was not desirable that even though a son or a daughter had sufficient means, his or her parents should starve. The use of the word “his” did not exclude parents from claiming maintenance from their daughter.

The Court took its cue from Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1) of the General Clauses Act, wherein “he” is interpreted to include “she” as well. Therefore, the Court held that the pronoun “his” as used in clause (d) of Section 125(1) CrPC included both male and female, and thus parents were entitled to claim maintenance against their daughter under the said Section, provided that the other conditions of the Section were fulfilled.

For the Common Man

This case clearly lays down that a daughter, even after her marriage, does not cease to be a daughter of her father or mother. It is the moral obligation of children to maintain their parents, and this has been concretised into a legal duty by Section 125(1)(d) of the CrPC, which imposes a legal duty on both son and daughter to maintain their father or mother who are unable to maintain themselves.