IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.484 of 2006 SMT.RENU DEVI & ANR Versus RAM BAHADUR SINGH ----------- 6 12.5.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioner no.1 is the wife of Opposite party and petitioner no.2 is their daughter. The parties do not dispute that there has been valid marriage and both petitioner no.1 and Opposite party do not dispute, that petitioner no.2 is not their daughter. Petitioner no.1 filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to herself and to her daughter Gunjan Kumari, petitioner no.2, who is now of marriageable age. In support of her contention petitioner no.1 examined four witnesses, whereas Opposite party examined two witnesses in support of his case. It would appear from the witnesses of the petitioner that pursuant to Panchayat she was given some lands, Jersy cow and two Katha Bassobasi land and some of bamboos clamp. However, it is asserted that the aforesaid properties given to her pursuant to Panchayat was taken back by her husband. It is alleged by petitioner no.1 that her husband married one Meeta Devi and is not taking any care of their maintenance. Learned counsel for the Opposite party submits that it would appear from the evidence of petitioner no.1 that he is not very well off and in fact works on Bataidari. He further submits that petitioner no.1 has admitted in her evidence that the aforesaid land is being cultivated by Opposite party on bataidari basis. He opposes the - 2 - maintenance to her daughter (petitioner no.2) on the ground that she has attained 18 years of age and has attained majority. The trial court rejected the application of the petitioners on the ground that she did not come to the court with clean hands and had suppressed the factum of Panchayat which has taken place earlier between the parties. It appears from record that petitioner herself had got some land from Opposite party pursuant to Panchayat. The stand of petitioner no.1 that the land has been subsequently snatched from her possession is not tenable, as she herself in her evidence stated that she has given the aforesaid land to Opposite party for cultivation on the basis of Bataidari. In this view of the matter, the trial court rightly rejected the prayer for grant of maintenance to petitioner no.1.The trial court also rejected the grant of maintenance to petitioner no.2 on the ground that she attained majority. Learned court below has erred in law in rejecting the application of petitioner no.2 that she has attained majority. It is well settled proposition of law that unmarried daughter even if she has attained majority, would be entitled to maintenance till she gets married. In view of the aforesaid settled principles, this court finds that the petitioner no.2 Gunjan Kumari would be entitled to maintenance from her father (Opposite party) till she gets married. The Opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month towards the maintenance of his daughter (petitioner no.2). The - 3 - KHAN aforesaid amount of maintenance would be effective from 1.8.2008. The Opposite party is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount in the Family Court, Bhagalpur and in turn the petitioner no.2 Gunjan Kumari would be entitled to withdraw the same. The arrears of the aforesaid amount would be paid to the petitioner in six equal monthly installments, apart from current maintenance. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)