IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 653 of 2010(C) ---------------------------- OP.918/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- NADUTHODI YOUSAF, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAVARAN, ATTIRI, P.O.KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENTS : PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. NADUTHODI RUBEENA, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.MALAYIL KADEEJA, CHAVITTIPARA HOUSE, INDIANOOR, NOW RESIDING AT C/O.KOYASSAN, POTTAMMEL HOUSE, POST KARATHUR, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 571. 2. NADUTHODI THASLEENA, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.MALAYIL KADEEJA, CHAVITTIPARA HOUSE, INDIANOOR, NOW RESIDING AT C/O.KOYASSAN, POTTAMMEL HOUSE, POST KARATHUR, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 571. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ********************** Mat.Appeal No.653 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 8th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The appellant is the father of the respondents. The mother of the respondents was divorced by the appellant. There were disputes between the appellant and the mother of the respondents. Altogether there were six children born in the wedlock. When litigations were pending between the appellant and the mother of the respondents, Annexure A1 agreement was entered into. As per the terms of the said agreement, the respondents herein were allegedly handed over to the custody of the appellant. The mother of the respondents was given custody of only the sixth child, a male child. All pending proceedings were allegedly brought to termination after execution of Annexure-A1 agreement. 2. Subsequently, admittedly the children, the respondents herein continued in the custody of their mother. According to the appellant, their mother had snatched away the respondents, who were agreed to be and were actually handed over under Mat.Appeal No.653 of 2010 2 Annexure A1 agreement to the appellant. The appellant did not take any steps to get the respondents back into his custody admittedly. The mother of the respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C, claiming maintenance. That petition was allowed and maintenance was ordered to the respondents as per order in M.C. No. 65 of 1993. That order was passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Later M.C. No. 143 of 2003 was filed before the Family Court under Section 127 Cr.P.C for enhancement of the maintenance amount. That was allowed. The same was challenged. The challenge was rejected by the High Court as per Order in RP(FC) No. 59 of 2006. 3. While the respondents were continuing in the custody of their mother, both of them attained majority. There is no contention that the respondents have any physical or mental abnormality, injury or disability. Thus, the liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. came to a grinding halt. Thereafter maintenance was not paid to the respondents herein. 4. The respondents herein, after they attained majority, staked a claim for maintenance. According to them, they are entitled to maintenance from the appellant, their father, under the personal law, applicable to them. The parties are Muslims. Mat.Appeal No.653 of 2010 3 The claim was resisted on various grounds. Parties went to trial. On the side of the respondents, the first respondent examined herself as PW1. The appellant examined himself as RW1. 5. The Family Court took note of the fact that the respondents continue to be students and that they are unable to maintain themselves. The Family Court further found that the appellant is a business man having sufficient means. Accordingly the Family Court proceeded to pass the impugned order directing payment of an amount of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,250/- per mensem respectively to the respondents from the date of the original petition. 6. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance ? The learned counsel for the appellant was requested to advance detailed arguments for admission as we did not prima facie find any merit in the challenge raised. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised various contentions before us. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the appellant has no legal liability to maintain his adult major daughters. The court below had found the claim for maintenance by the adult major unmarried daughters to be Mat.Appeal No.653 of 2010 4 justified and maintainable in view of the personal law applicable to Muslims crystallised in clause 370 of Chapter XIX of Mulla Principles of Mahomedan Law which states the principles of liability in the following words: “370: Maintenance of children and grandchildren:- (1) A father is bound to maintain his sons until they have attained the age of puberty. He is also bound to maintain his daughters until they are married. But he is not bound to maintain his adult sons unless they are disabled by infirmity or disease. The fact that the children are in the custody of their mother during their infancy (S.352) does not relieve the father from the obligation of maintaining them (a). But the father is not bound to maintain a child who is capable of being maintained out of his or her own property. (2) If the father is poor, and incapable of earning by his own labour, the mother, if she is in easy circumstances, is bound to maintain her children as the father would be. (3) If the father is poor and infirm, and the mother also is poor, the obligation to maintain the children lies on the grandfather, provided he is in easy circumstances.” (emphasis supplied) 8. On the basis of the above statement of the personal law it is beyond controversy that Muslim daughters are entitled for maintenance from their father until they are married. The respondents herein are admittedly not married. Significantly there is no specific contention or evidence that they are not students. There is nothing tangible in the pleadings or evidence Mat.Appeal No.653 of 2010 5 which can show that they are employed, have any assets or are earning any income to maintain and support themselves. In these circumstances, it appears to us to be inescapable that major unmarried daughters unable to maintain themselves, like the respondents herein are entitled to claim maintenance from their father who is capable of providing maintenance to them. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that under Section 125 Cr.P.C, adult major Muslim unmarried daughters are not entitled for maintenance. We have no quarrel with that proposition. In order to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, a major unmarried Muslim daughter is bound to show that she falls under Section 125(1)(c) Cr.P.C. Otherwise, a major child, whether a son or a daughter, is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Under clause 374 of Mulla Principles of Mahomedan Law also, the liability of the Muslim husband to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C is reiterated. 10. The claim in this proceedings is not for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The short question then is whether Section 125 Cr.P.C overrides, obliterates or nullifies the claim for maintenance under the personal law. There is nothing in Section 125 Cr.P.C or Chapter IX of Cr.P.C to indicate that the Mat.Appeal No.653 of 2010 6 provisions of the said Chapter would override the stipulations under the personal law. The provisions of Chapter IX of Cr.P.C has a very significant secular purpose to serve. It has nothing to do with the personal law applicable to the parties. Whether under the personal law a person is liable to pay maintenance or not, his liability to pay maintenance under the secular law of the land in Chapter IX Cr.P.C would continue. Thus we find absolutely no merit in the contention that the liability under the personal law would stand extinguished, overrided or obliterated by the provisions of Chapter IX Cr.P.C. 11. We do not, in these circumstances, find any merit in the contention that the liability under the personal law of a father having sufficient means to pay maintenance to his major unmarried daughters would in any way stand extinguished, altered, modified or obliterated by the stipulations of Chapter IX Cr.P.C. 12. The learned counsel contends that such understanding of the law would virtually amount to discrimination between sons and daughters in the matter of maintenance under the personal law. Under the personal law, sons will cease to be entitled for maintenance once they attain puberty; whereas daughters, even after they attain majority, will Mat.Appeal No.653 of 2010 7 be entitled for maintenance till they are married. Such a discrimination on the basis of gender is unjustified, contends the counsel. We find no merit in this contention at all. Even assuming that personal law is law for the purpose of Article 13 of the Constitution, Article 15(3) perfectly authorises and recognises a law which discriminates in favour of women and children. The challenge of the ground of discrimination cannot, in these circumstances, succeed. 13. We are satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded - Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,250/- per mensem for the respondents is perfectly justified by the evidence available about the needs of the respondents/unmarried daughters and the means of the appellant herein. 14. No other contentions are raised. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limine. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS , JUDGE) rtr/