Case Note

G. Debendra Rao v. G. Puspa Prabha Rao & Anr.
RPFAM No. 18 of 2021 | Orissa High Court | Justice G. Satapathy | Judgment dated 16 September 2025

Headnote

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125; Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 20(3) – Maintenance to wife and major unmarried daughter – Wife though qualified in law but without sufficient income is entitled to maintenance – Husband’s remarriage constitutes valid ground for wife to live separately – Major unmarried daughter entitled to maintenance under S.20(3) HAMA notwithstanding majority, until marriage – Family Court competent to grant such relief without requiring fresh proceedings – Revision dismissed.

Facts

• Petitioner-husband and respondent-wife married in 2001; a daughter was born from the marriage.

• Due to disputes including alleged dowry demands, wife left matrimonial home in 2004.

• Husband obtained an ex parte divorce decree in 2007; wife contested unsuccessfully.

• In 2012, wife and daughter filed petition under S.125 CrPC seeking maintenance.

• Family Court, Bargarh, awarded ₹5,000 each per month to wife and daughter (w.e.f. 06.03.2012).

• Husband challenged the order contending:

  1. Wife is educated (M.A., LL.B), earning independently, hence not entitled.

  2. Daughter, having attained majority, cannot claim under S.125 CrPC.

  3. Wife voluntarily deserted him.

Issues

1. Whether a qualified wife with some earning capacity is disentitled to claim maintenance?

2. Whether a major unmarried daughter can claim maintenance under S.125 CrPC?

3. Whether the wife’s alleged desertion bars her from claiming maintenance?

Held

1. Wife’s entitlement – Mere qualification or limited income does not bar maintenance. Wife must be maintained according to husband’s status; no evidence of sufficient independent income was produced.

2. Daughter’s entitlement – Although S.125 CrPC restricts maintenance to minors (except disabled children), S.20(3) of HAMA obliges a Hindu father to maintain his unmarried daughter unable to support herself until marriage. Family Court has concurrent jurisdiction under both laws; daughter need not file a separate petition.

3. Desertion – Since husband had contracted second marriage, wife had valid ground to reside separately. Desertion plea unsustainable.

4. Financial capacity – Income tax records and assets proved husband’s sufficient means.

Ratio Decidendi

• Section 20(3) HAMA supplements Section 125 CrPC, enabling maintenance to unmarried daughters beyond majority.

• Educational qualification of wife does not by itself disentitle her from maintenance; sufficiency of actual income is determinative.

• Remarriage by husband constitutes a just ground for wife’s separate residence and maintenance claim.

Result

Revision petition dismissed. Order of Family Court directing maintenance of ₹5,000 each per month to wife and daughter upheld.

Endnotes – Case Law Referred

1. Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal, (1969) 3 SCC 802 – CrPC and HAMA not inconsistent; both can stand together.

2. Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata, (2002) 5 SCC 422 – Major unmarried daughter entitled to maintenance under S.20(3) HAMA till marriage.

3. Abhilasha v. Prakash & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 4355 – Major unmarried daughter may seek maintenance under S.20(3) HAMA.

4. Madan Kumar Satpathy v. Priyadarshini Pati, RPFAM No.417 of 2023 (Orissa HC, decided 07.02.2025) – Qualification of wife by itself no bar; depends on actual income.

Download PDF of G. Debendra Rao v. G. Puspa Prabha Rao G. Debendra Rao v. G. Puspa Prabha Rao (Orissa High Court)