Father’s Financial Liability Quashed
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled that a father is not liable to pay maintenance to his able-bodied, unmarried, adult daughters under Section 488 of the erstwhile J&K CrPC. The High Court’s decision relieves the petitioner from the monthly maintenance order imposed by the trial magistrate six years ago.
Justice Rahul Bharti noted that the maintenance order was illegal. The court held that the daughters did not qualify for maintenance as they were physically and mentally fit to support themselves.
Case Background: Daughters’ Maintenance Order Challenged
The case began when two major daughters filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anantnag. They sought maintenance from their father under Section 488 of the J&K CrPC, 1973. At the time, all daughters had already attained the age of majority.
The father, financially dependent on his son, also filed for maintenance under the same section. His plea was allowed, and the court granted him Rs. 2000 per month from his son.
However, the daughters’ application remained pending. On April 9, 2019, the magistrate passed an order directing the father to pay Rs. 1200 monthly to each of the two daughters. The maintenance was made effective from July 10, 2014.
Petitioner’s Stance: Financial Burden Unjustified
The father challenged the magistrate’s order through a criminal revision before the Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag. However, the revisional court upheld the maintenance order. This forced the petitioner to move the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, citing his financial hardship and dependency on his son.
He argued that the order unfairly imposed a financial burden of Rs. 2400 per month, despite his limited means and recognized need for support himself.
Court’s Ruling: No Entitlement Without Disability
The High Court ruled that Section 488 of the J&K CrPC does not support maintenance for adult, unmarried daughters who are physically and mentally capable of maintaining themselves. The law specifically excludes such daughters unless they are disabled.
Justice Bharti observed that both the trial magistrate and the Sessions Court ignored the legal limitations of Section 488. The daughters did not meet the criteria to claim maintenance, and hence the orders were deemed erroneous.
Final Verdict: Illegal Orders Set Aside
The High Court set aside both the lower court orders. The bench concluded that the maintenance order was legally unsustainable and imposed a wrongful financial burden on the father. The decision underscores that able-bodied adult daughters cannot seek maintenance under Section 488 of the now-repealed J&K CrPC.
