Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Ganga Singh (Handicapped) vs Smt Devi Singh on 10 July, 2026
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50909
CRR No-4968-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON 10th OF JULY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.4968 of 2024
SHRI GANGA SINGH (HANDICAPPED)
Versus
SMT. DEVI SINGH AND ANOTHER
...................................................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Ravendra Kumar Tiwari with Ms. Taneyaa Manucha, Advocates for the
petitioner.
Ms. Priya Mishra, Advocate for respondents.
...........................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner (father
of the respondent 2-Raksha Singh, major daughter) challenging the order
dtd.13.08.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna in MJCR
No. 179/2023, whereby the Family Court has awarded an amount of
Rs.2,000/- to the respondent 2 (major unmarried daughter) towards
monthly maintenance pendente lite, however refused to award any
maintenance to the respondent 1 (wife) on the ground that even prima
facie, she does not appear to be legally wedded wife of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/father submits that the
respondent 2 being major unmarried daughter, the application filed under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 13-07-2026
11:22:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50909
CRR No-4968-2024
2
Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable on her behalf. She also submits
that repeatedly the respondent 2 assaulted the petitioner/father and filed
several complaints against him, therefore also she is not entitled to any
maintenance.
3. Taking this Court to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Abhilasha Vs. Parkash and others, (2021) 14 SCC 99 (which is in
relation to the jurisdiction of the family court); Ajay Kumar Rathee vs.
Seema Rathee given in Civil Appeal No. 5141/2011 vide order
dtd.10.03.2022 (which is in relation to the proposition that if the daughter
does not want to maintain any relationship with the father, she is not
entitled to maintenance from her father); Mrs. Akella Lalitha vs. Sri
Konda Hanumantha Rao & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638 (which is in
relation to the proposition that the Court cannot travel beyond the
pleadings and relief); and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray
Gulabrao Phalke and others, (2015) 3 SCC 123 (which is in relation to
scope of revisional power of the Court), learned Counsel submits that
although the respondent 2 may be entitled to maintenance under Section
20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short ‘the
HAM Act’), but for getting maintenance under Section 20(3) of the HAM
Act, prerequisite condition is that major unmarried daughter should suffer
with some disability. With support of the aforesaid decisions, she also
submits that if the respondent 2 wanted any relief of maintenance, she
should have prayed for conversion of the application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. into the application/suit under Section 20(3) of the HAM Act and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 13-07-2026
11:22:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50909
CRR No-4968-2024
3
in absence thereof, neither the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain
the application for granting the maintenance nor the respondent 2 is
entitled to any maintenance. With these submissions, she prays for setting
aside the impugned order and for allowing the criminal revision.
4. In turn, learned counsel for the respondents 1-2 (wife and major
daughter) supports the impugned order and submits that the impugned
order being an interim order of awarding monthly maintenance pendente
lite to a major unmarried daughter, no interference is called for therein, at
the present stage, especially in light of coordinate bench decisions in the
case of Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat v. Smt. Manjulata and Ors., 2000 Supreme
(Raj) 662; Mustakim v. State of U.P. and another in Crl. Revision No.
3781/2014 vide order dtd.10.02.2015; Awdhesh Singh vs. State of UP &
2 Others in Cr.R. No. 83/2024 vide order dtd.02.08.2024 (at
Allahabad); and Shri Arun Kumar vs. Smt. Sarla & Anr. in Crl. Rev. P.
312/2023 & CrL. M.A. 7773/2023 vide order dtd.03.12.2025 (at Delhi).
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as
well as the impugned order.
6. Apparently, a joint application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been
filed by the respondents 1-2 (wife and major unmarried daughter,
respectively) and on the date of filing of the application, the respondent 2
has shown herself to be major and maintenance has been claimed with the
contention that the petitioner has deserted the respondents 1-2 and being
hand to mouth, they are not in a position to maintain themselves. It is also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 13-07-2026
11:22:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50909
CRR No-4968-2024
4
contended that the petitioner-Ganga Singh is treating the respondents 1-2
with cruelty. Prima facie the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is
maintainable only on behalf of the respondent 1 (wife) and even though
the respondent 2 is an unmarried daughter but she being major on the date
of application, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not appear
to be maintainable but apparently joint application has been filed by wife
and major daughter before the Family Court, who has jurisdiction to
decide the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as the
application/suit under Section 20(3) of the HAM Act.
7. In the case of Abhilasha (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held as under:-
“33. After enactment of the Family Courts Act, 1984, a Family
Court shall also have the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of
the First Class under Chapter IX of CrPC relating to order for
maintenance of wife, children and parents. Family Courts shall
have the jurisdiction only with respect to city or town whose
population exceeds one million, where there is no Family Court,
proceedings under Section 125 CrPC shall have to be before the
Magistrate of the First Class. In an area where the Family Court is
not established, a suit or proceedings for maintenance including the
proceedings under Section 20 of the 1956 Act shall only be before
the District Court or any subordinate civil court.
34. There may be a case where the Family Court has jurisdiction to
decide a case under Section 125 CrPC as well as the suit under
Section 20 of the 1956 Act in such eventuality, the Family Court
can exercise jurisdiction under both the Acts and in an appropriate
case can grant maintenance to unmarried daughter even though she
has become major enforcing her right under Section 20 of the 1956
Act so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings as observed by thisSignature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 13-07-2026
11:22:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50909CRR No-4968-2024
5
Court in Jagdish Jugtawat. However the Magistrate in exercise of
powers under Section 125 CrPC cannot pass such order.”
8. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that the maintenance has been
claimed on behalf of major unmarried daughter by filing application
under wrong provision i.e. under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and it is well settled
that mere mentioning of wrong provision in the application/petition, does
not come in the way of justice and on that ground the Court cannot refuse
to grant relief, which otherwise may be granted in the existing facts and
circumstances of the case. In this regard, I find support from three
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Mani v. Sangeetha
Thgeatre and others, (2004) 12 SCC 278 (para 9); P.K. Palanisamy v. N.
Arumugham, (2009) 9 SCC 173 (para 27); and The Patna Municipal
Corporation & Ors. v. M/s Tribro Ad Bureau & Ors., 2024 (8) Supreme
160 (para 29 to 31). Relevant paragraphs of the decision in the case of
The Patna Municipal Corporation (supra), are reproduced as under :-
“29. The other aspect, which we would like to cover, is the
proportionality/reasonableness in the enhancement of the rate from Re.1 per square
foot to Rs.10 per square foot. Whilst at first blush, the jump may seem high, being ten
times, ultimately, it is subjective. Nothing has been canvassed before us to indicate
that such rate was exorbitant or disproportionate, requiring judicial interdiction. There
is no dispute that in the Meeting held on 29.08.2005, the advertising companies did
not object to payment of royalty, as sought by the Corporation. Hence, a challenge
could, later be mounted on limited grounds to the quantum/rate of royalty, and not on
the decision to charge royalty itself. Even otherwise, as we do not find that the
‘royalty’ was a tax/levy, the action of the Corporation cannot be struck down merely
on the ground of having quoted Section 431 of the Act (wrongly), for, quoting the
wrong provision of law, when the power to do an act otherwise exists, would
not invalidate or render illegal the act in question. A Bench of three learned Judges in
N Mani v Sangeetha Theatre, (2004) 12 SCC 278 held:
‘9. It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely
because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically
referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itselfSignature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 13-07-2026
11:22:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50909CRR No-4968-2024
6
does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can
be traced to a source available in law.’(emphasis supplied)
30. The decision in N Mani (supra) was relied upon by two learned Judges in Ram
Sunder Ram v Union of India, 2007 (9) SCALE 197, wherein this Court reiterated
that quoting the wrong provision of law, when the authority concerned is otherwise
empowered to carry out an act, could not vitiate the act on such ground
alone. Likewise, and on taking note of N Mani (supra) and Ram Sunder Ram (supra),
2 learned Judges in P K Palanisamy v N Arumugham, (2009) 9 SCC 173 opined as
under:
’27. … Only because a wrong provision was mentioned by the appellant, the
same, in our opinion, by itself would not be a ground to hold that the
application was not maintainable or that the order passed thereon would be a
nullity. It is a well-settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong
provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the
court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor.’(emphasis supplied)
31. The above principle found acceptance also, inter alia, in Mohd. Shahabuddin v
State of Bihar, (2010) 4 SCC 653 and State of Haryana v Raj Kumar, (2021) 9 SCC
292.”
9. As such, in the present case merely on the ground that the
respondent 2 (major unmarried daughter) has filed the application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. instead of application/suit under Section 20(3) of the
HAM Act, it cannot be said that the respondent 2 is not entitled to any
maintenance that too interim maintenance pendente lite or the Family
Court has no jurisdiction to pass the order of maintenance pendente lite
on the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
10. For convenience, the provision of Section 20 of the Act is
reproduced as under:-
“20. Maintenance of children and aged parents.–
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 13-07-2026
11:22:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50909
CRR No-4968-2024
7
(1)Subject to the provisions of this section a Hindu is bound,
during his or her lifetime, to maintain his or her legitimate or
illegitimate children and his or her aged or infirm parents.
(2)A legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from
his or her father or mother so long as the child is a minor.
(3)The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm
parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the
parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to
maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other
property.
Explanation.-In this section “parent” includes a childless step-
mother.”
11. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that while seeking maintenance
under Section 20(3) of the HAM Act, the major unmarried daughter has
to show that she is not in a position to maintain herself out of her own
earnings or other property and it is not necessary that she should also
suffer with some disability.
12. The aforesaid requirement of the said provision is clearly fulfilled
in the present case and nothing adverse has been pointed out by learned
Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the aforesaid requirement is
not fulfilled in the present case.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the decisions relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner do not provide any help to the petitioner
and looking to the nature of impugned order, this Court does not find any
illegality therein.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 13-07-2026
11:22:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50909
CRR No-4968-2024
8
14. It has been informed by learned Counsel for the respondents, that
the petitioner has not cleared the dues of interim maintenance. As such it
is hereby observed that if the petitioner does not pay or deposit the
interim maintenance amount ordered by the Family Court, it shall take
strict action against the petitioner in respect of recovery of the
maintenance amount and may also strike out the defence of the petitioner.
15. It is also observed that with a view to remove technical objection
being raised by the petitioner, the respondents may pray for
correction/conversion of the pending application, into “an application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956″ because the application has been filed jointly, on
behalf of wife and major unmarried daughter of the petitioner.
16. Resultantly and with the aforesaid observations, this criminal
revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 13-07-2026
11:22:36
