Criminal Appeal No 378 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 1110
1985 of the Bombay High Court in Crl
Revision Appln
No 167 of 1985
VN Ganpule for the Appellant
AM Khanwilkar AS Bhasme and GB Sathe for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT J
The only point that is involved in this appeal by special leave is whether the respondent No 1 is entitled to claim maintenance from the appellant his married daugh ter under section 1251d Cr
The appellant Dr Mrs Vijaya Arbat a medical practi tioner at Kalyan District Thane is the married daughter of the respondent No 1 Kashirao Rajaram Sawai by his first wife
Her mother died in 1948
Thereafter the respondent No 1 remarried and is living with his second wife
The respondent No 1 filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Court Kalyan claiming maintenance from the appellant his daughter at the rate of Rs500 per month on the ground that he was unable to maintain himself
At the outset the appellant raised a preliminary objec tion to the maintainability of the application on the ground that section 1251d Cr
PC does not entitle a father to claim maintenance from his daughter
The preliminary objec tion was overruled by the learned Magis 334 trate and it was held by him that the application was maintainable
Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate the appellant moved the Bombay High Court in revision
The High Court affirmed the order of the learned Magistrate and held that the application of a father for maintenance who is unable to maintain himself is maintain able against his married daughter having sufficient means
In that view of the matter the High Court dismissed the revisional application of the appellant
Hence this appeal by special leave
Sub section 1 of section 125 Cr
PC provides as under If any person having
sufficient means ne glects or refuses to maintain a his wife unable to maintain herself or b his legitimate or illegitimate minor child whether married or not unable to maintain itself or c his legitimate or illegitimate child not being a married daughter who has at tained majority where such child is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself or d his father or mother unable to maintain himself or herself a Magistrate of the first class may upon proof of such neglect or refusal order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child father or mother at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole as such Magistrate thinks fit and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause b to make such allow ance until she attains her majority if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child if married is not possessed of sufficient means
 Sub section 1 of section 125 confers power on the Magistrate of the First Class to order a person to make a monthly allowance for the 335 maintenance of some of his close relations like wife chil dren father and mother under certain circumstances
It has been observed by this Court in Bhagwan Dutt vs Kamla Devi  that the object of section 125 Cr
PC is to provide a summary remedy to save dependents from destitu tion and vagrancy and thus to serve a social purpose
There can be no doubt that it is the moral obligation of a son or a daughter to maintain his or her parents
It is not desirable that even though a son or a daughter has sufficient means his or her parents would starve
Apart from any law the Indian society casts a duty on the chil dren of a person to maintain their parents if they are not in a position to maintain themselves
It is also their duty to look after their parents when they become old and infirm
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appel lant has urged that under clause d of section 1251 a father is not entitled to claim maintenance from his daugh ter whether married or not
Our attention has been drawn to the use of the pronoun his  in clause d and it is submit ted that the pronoun indicates that it is only the son who is burdened with the obligation to maintain his parents
Counsel submits that if the legislature had intended that the maintenance can be claimed by the parents from the daughter as well it would not have used the pronoun his 
We are unable to accept this contention
It is true that clause d has used the expression his father or mother but in our opinion the use of the word his  does not exclude the parents claiming maintenance from their daugh ter
Section 2y Cr
PC provides that words and expres sions used herein and not defined but defined in the Indian Penal Code have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Code
Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that the pronoun he  and its derivatives are used for any person whether male or female
Thus in view of section 8 IPC read with section 2y Cr
PC the pronoun his  in clause d of section 1251 Cr
PC also indicates a fe male
Section 131 of the General Clauses Act lays down that in all Central Acts and Regulations unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context words import ing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females
Therefore the pronoun his  as used in clause d of sec tion 1251 Cr
PC includes both a male and a female
In other words the parents will be entitled to claim mainte nance against their daughter provided however the other conditions as mentioned in the section are fulfilled
Before ordering maintenance in 336 favour of a father or a mother against their married daugh ter the court must be satisfied that the daughter has sufficient means of her own independently of the means or income of her husband and that the father or the mother as the case may be is unable to maintain himself or herself
Much reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on a decision of the Kerala High Court in Raj Kumari vs Yashodha Devi In that case it has been held by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court mainly relying upon the report of the Joint Committee on the Criminal Procedure Code Bill 1973 that a daughter is not liable to maintain her parents who are unable to maintain themselves
The Joint Committee in their report made the following recommendations The committee considers that the right of the parents not possessed of sufficient means to be maintained by their son should be recog nised by making a provision that where the father or mother is unable to maintain himself or herself an order for payment of maintenance may be directed to a son who is possessed of sufficient means
If there are two or more children the parents may seek the remedy against any one or more of them Emphasis supplied
The learned Judge of the Kerala High Court did not refer in his judgment to the sentence which has been underlined
It is true that in the first part of the report the word son  has been used but in the latter part which has been underlined the recommendation is that if there are two or more children the parents may seek the remedy against any one or more of them
If the recommendation of the Joint Committee was that the liability to maintain the parents unable to maintain themselves would be on the son only in that case in the latter portion of the report the Joint Committee would not have used the word children  which admittedly includes sons and daughters
In our opinion as we read the report of the Joint Committee it did not place the burden of maintaining the parents only on the son but recommended that the liability to maintain the parents should be of the sons and the daughters as well
We have referred to the report of the Joint Committee inasmuch as the same has been relied upon in Raj Kumari s case supra by the Kerala High Court and also on behalf of the appellant in the instant case
When the statute provides that the pronoun his  not only denotes a male but also a female we do not think it necessary to refer to the report of the Joint Committee for the 337 interpretation of clause d of section 1251 Cr
The father or mother unable to maintain himself or herself can claim maintenance from their son or daughter
The expression his father or mother is not confined only to the father or mother of the son but also to the father or mother of the daughter
In other words the expression his father or mother should also be construed as her father or mother
In M Areera Beevi vs Dr KM Sahib 1983 CrLJ 412 and Repalli Masthanamma vs Thota Sriramulu  another Single Bench of the Kerala High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court have respectively taken the view that the parents who are unable to maintain them selves can claim maintenance also from their daughters under section 1251d Cr
PC We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that a married daughter has no obligation to maintain her parents even if they are unable to maintain themselves
It has been rightly pointed out by the High Court that a daugh ter after her marriage does not cease to be a daughter of the father or mother
It has been earlier noticed that it is the moral obligation of the children to maintain their parents
In case the contention of the appellant that the daughter has no liability whatsoever to maintain her parents is accepted in that case parents having no son but only daughters and unable to maintain themselves would go desti tute if the daughters even though they have sufficient means refuse to maintain their parents
After giving our best consideration to the question we are of the view that section 1251d has imposed a liabil ity on both the son and the daughter to maintain their father or mother who is unable to maintain himself or her self
Section 488 of the old Criminal Procedure Code did not contain a provision like clause d of section 1251
The legislature in enacting Criminal Procedure Code 1973 thought it wise to provide for the maintenance of the par ents of a person when such parents are unable to maintain themselves
The purpose of such enactment is to enforce social obligation and we do not think why the daughter should be excluded from such obligation to maintain their parents
The judgment of the High Court is affirmed and this appeal is dismissed
There will however be no order as to costs
338 The learned Magistrate will now dispose of the applica tion under section 1251d Cr
PC of the respondent on merits in accordance with law
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case
SR Appeal dis missed


Summary:
The appellant a medical practitioner at Kalyan Dis trict Thane is the married daughter of Respondent No 1 Kashirao Rajaram Sawai by his first wife who died in 1948
Thereafter Respondent No 1 remarried and he is living with his second wife
He filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Court Kalyan claiming maintenance from the appellant at the rate of Rs500 per month on the ground that he was unable to maintain himself
A preliminary objection raised to the effect that an application under section 1251d Criminal Procedure Code by a father to claim maintenance from his daughter was not maintainable was overruled by the Trial Magistrate and upheld by the High Court in revision
Hence the daughter s appeal by Special leave
Dismissing the appeal the Court HELD 11 An application under section 1251d of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by a father claiming maintenance from his married daughter is perfectly maintain able
337C 12 Section 1251d of the Code a new provision has imposed a liability on both the son and the daughter to maintain their father or mother who is unable to maintain himself or herself
337F 13 The object of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code is to provide a summary remedy to save dependents from destitu tion and vagrancy and thus to serve a social purpose
There can be no doubt that it is the moral obligation of a son or a daughter to maintain his or her 332 parents
It is not desirable that even though a son or a daughter has sufficient means his or her parents would starve
Apart from any law the Indian Society casts a duty on the children of a person to maintain their parents if they are not in a position to maintain themselves
It is also their duty to look after their parents when they become old and infirm
335B C Bhagwan Dutt vs Kamla Devi   referred to
21 It is true that clause d has used the expression his father or mother  but the use of the word his  does not exclude the parents claiming maintenance from their daughter
Section 2y Criminal Procedure Code provides that words and expressions used herein and not defined but de fined in the Indian Penal Code have the meanings respective ly assigned to them in that Code
Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that the pronoun he  and its deriva tives are used for any person whether male or female
Thus in view of section 8 Indian Penal Code read with section 2y Criminal Procedure Code the pronoun his  in clause d of section 1251 Criminal Procedure Code also indicates a female
Section 131 of the General Clauses Act lays down that in all Central Acts and Regulations unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context words import ing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females
Therefore the pronoun his  as used in clause d of sec tion 1251 Criminal Procedure Code includes both a male and a female
In other words the parents will be entitled to claim maintenance against their daughter provided however the other conditions as mentioned in the section are ful filled
Before ordering maintenance in favour of a father or a mother against their married daughter the court must be satisfied that the daughter has sufficient means of her own independently of the means or income of her husband and that the father or the mother as the case may be is unable to maintain himself or herself
335E H 336A B 22 When the statute provides that the pronoun his  not only denotes a male but also a female it is not necessary to refer to the report of the Joint Committee on Criminal Procedure Code Bill for the interpretation of clause d of section 1251 Criminal Procedure Code
The father or moth er unable to maintain himself or herself can claim mainte nance from their son or daughter
The expression his father or mother is not confined only to the father or mother of the son but also to the father or mother of the daughter
In other words the expression his father or mother  should also be construed as her father or mother 
336H 337A B 333 23 A daughter after her marriage does not cease to be a daughter of the father or mother
If it is not so parents having no son but only daughters and unable to maintain themselves would go destitute if the daughters even though they have sufficient means refuse to maintain their parents
337D E Raj Kumari vs Yashodha Devi  overruled
M Areera Beevi vs Dr KM Sahib and Repalli Masthanamma vs Thota Sriramulu 1982 An
WR 393 approved