# Anurag Pandey Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 1004
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-31
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anurag-pandey-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53585
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

seek maintenance under Section 125 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or
whether such claim must be determined
under
Section
20(3)
of
the
Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956;
and if so, whether the Family Court,
exercising concurrent jurisdiction, can
convert proceedings under Section 125
Cr.P.C. into a civil suit under Section 20(3)
of the 1956 Act.

Headnotes
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - s.125;
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
1956 - s.20(3); Family Courts Act, 1984
- ss.7, 10, 18, 19 - Maintenance - Major
unmarried daughter - Jurisdiction of
Family Court - Conversion of proceedings
- Distinction between civil and criminal
jurisdictions - Scope of relief

HELD:

Entitlement to maintenance under s.125 Cr.P.C.-
extends only to a minor child -major child
entitled for maintenance- if suffering from
physical or mental abnormality or injury and
unable to maintain itself-physically and mentally
7 All. Anurag Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1005
fit major unmarried daughter cannot claim
maintenance under s.125 Cr.P.C. [Paras 8-9]

Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 -statutory and broader
obligation on a Hindu parent-maintain an
unmarried daughter unable to maintain herself
out of her own earnings or property-claim being
civil in nature-to be adjudicated in accordance
with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the
factors enumerated in s.23(2) of the 1956 Act.
[Paras 10-13, 25]

Under ss.7, 10 and 18 of the Family Courts Act,
1984-Family Court exercises dual jurisdiction -
civil (under CPC) and criminal (under Cr.P.C.). -
proceedings under Chapter IX Cr.P.C. are
summary and penal in nature- s.20(3) of the
1956
Act are
civil-require
full
trial
and
determination. [Paras 14-18, 20-21]

Family Court, while deciding an application
under s.125 Cr.P.C.-cannot grant maintenance
under
s.20(3)
of
the
1956
Act-without
converting
the
proceedings
and
without
recording findings based on the criteria in
s.23(2) of that Act. [Paras 24-25]

Impugned order granting maintenance under
s.20(3) while acting under s.125 Cr.P.C.-
unsustainable-was set aside-Revision allowedmatter remitted to the Family Court to permit
conversion of the proceeding into a civil suit
under s.20(3) of the 1956 Act and to decide it
expeditiously in accordance with law. [Paras 2526] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Abhilasha v. Parkash and Others, (2021)
13 SCC 99 - applied.

List of Acts / Statutes
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; The Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Family
Courts Act, 1984; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
Indian Majority Act, 1875.

List of Keywords
Maintenance; Major unmarried daughter; Family
Cour;
Dual
jurisdiction;
Conversion
of
proceedings; Summary procedure; remand for
civil adjudication.
Case Arising From
Criminal Revision under Sections 397/401
Cr.P.C. against judgment and order dated
30 July 2024 passed by the Principal
Judge,
Family
Court,
Sultanpur,
in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 280 of 2023
(Kumari Neha Pandey v. Anurag Pandey).

Appearance for Parties

For the Revisionist : Shri Amit Kumar Singh,
Shri Ajai Kumar Gupta.
For
the
Opposite
Parties
:
Learned
Government Advocate, Shri Rohit Singh Parmar.

## Text

1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
her statement should, without exception,
be taken as the gospel truth. Additionally,
her statement can, at best, be adjudged on
the principle that ordinarily no injured
witness would tell a lie or implicate a
person falsely. We believe that it is under
these principles that this case, and others
such as this one, need to be examined."

(Emphasis added)

63. Therefore, the trial Court has
committed a patent error in holding the
appellant guilty without a proper and
through examination of the evidence on
record, merely because the prosecution had
alleged that a sexual offence had been
committed against a minor girl and the
alleged offence is a heinous offence.

64. As this Court has held that the
prosecution could not establish the guilt of
the accused-appellant, the only conclusion
possible that the judgment of the trial Court
be set aside and the accused-appellant be
acquitted of all the charges.

65.
Accordingly,
the
appeal
is
allowed. The judgment and order dated
26.07.2018 passed by Sri Ram Suchit, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special
Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 8, Sitapur in
Special Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2016
arising out of Case Crime No. 268 of 2015,
under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and
Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station
Sadarpur, District Sitapur, convicting and
sentencing the appellant, is set aside. The
accused-appellant is acquitted of all the
charges. In case the appellant has deposited
any amount towards fine, the same shall be
refunded to him within a period of thirty
days from today.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 1004
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2025

Anurag Pandey ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Amit Kumar Singh, Ajai Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Rohit Singh Parmar

Issue for Consideration
Whether a major unmarried daughter can
seek maintenance under Section 125 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or
whether such claim must be determined
under
Section
20(3)
of
the
Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956;
and if so, whether the Family Court,
exercising concurrent jurisdiction, can
convert proceedings under Section 125
Cr.P.C. into a civil suit under Section 20(3)
of the 1956 Act.

Headnotes
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - s.125;
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
1956 - s.20(3); Family Courts Act, 1984
- ss.7, 10, 18, 19 - Maintenance - Major
unmarried daughter - Jurisdiction of
Family Court - Conversion of proceedings
- Distinction between civil and criminal
jurisdictions - Scope of relief

HELD:

Entitlement to maintenance under s.125 Cr.P.C.-
extends only to a minor child -major child
entitled for maintenance- if suffering from
physical or mental abnormality or injury and
unable to maintain itself-physically and mentally
7 All. Anurag Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1005
fit major unmarried daughter cannot claim
maintenance under s.125 Cr.P.C. [Paras 8-9]

Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 -statutory and broader
obligation on a Hindu parent-maintain an
unmarried daughter unable to maintain herself
out of her own earnings or property-claim being
civil in nature-to be adjudicated in accordance
with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the
factors enumerated in s.23(2) of the 1956 Act.
[Paras 10-13, 25]

Under ss.7, 10 and 18 of the Family Courts Act,
1984-Family Court exercises dual jurisdiction -
civil (under CPC) and criminal (under Cr.P.C.). -
proceedings under Chapter IX Cr.P.C. are
summary and penal in nature- s.20(3) of the
1956
Act are
civil-require
full
trial
and
determination. [Paras 14-18, 20-21]

Family Court, while deciding an application
under s.125 Cr.P.C.-cannot grant maintenance
under
s.20(3)
of
the
1956
Act-without
converting
the
proceedings
and
without
recording findings based on the criteria in
s.23(2) of that Act. [Paras 24-25]

Impugned order granting maintenance under
s.20(3) while acting under s.125 Cr.P.C.-
unsustainable-was set aside-Revision allowedmatter remitted to the Family Court to permit
conversion of the proceeding into a civil suit
under s.20(3) of the 1956 Act and to decide it
expeditiously in accordance with law. [Paras 2526] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Abhilasha v. Parkash and Others, (2021)
13 SCC 99 - applied.

List of Acts / Statutes
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; The Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Family
Courts Act, 1984; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
Indian Majority Act, 1875.

List of Keywords
Maintenance; Major unmarried daughter; Family
Cour;
Dual
jurisdiction;
Conversion
of
proceedings; Summary procedure; remand for
civil adjudication.
Case Arising From
Criminal Revision under Sections 397/401
Cr.P.C. against judgment and order dated
30 July 2024 passed by the Principal
Judge,
Family
Court,
Sultanpur,
in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 280 of 2023
(Kumari Neha Pandey v. Anurag Pandey).

Appearance for Parties

For the Revisionist : Shri Amit Kumar Singh,
Shri Ajai Kumar Gupta.
For
the
Opposite
Parties
:
Learned
Government Advocate, Shri Rohit Singh Parmar.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Amit Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the revisionist, learned
AGA and Shri Rohit Singh Parmar, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 2.

2. This Criminal Revision has been
filed assailing the judgment and order dated
30.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Case
No. 280 of 2023; Kumari Neha Pandey vs.
Anurag Pandey under Section 125 of
Criminal Procedure Code (here-in-after
referred as CrPC) by Principal Judge,
Family Court, District Sultanpur.

3. The sole argument advanced by
learned counsel for the revisionist is that
the respondent no. 2 is major in age and it
was disclosed in the application under
Section 125 CrPC itself, therefore, the
maintenance could not have been allowed
in the proceeding(s) under Section 125
CrPC and if the court was of the view that a
major daughter can claim maintenance
under Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956, the proceedings
could have been converted and after trial as
a civil suit in accordance with law, the
order could have been passed. He further
submits that the judgment of the Hon'ble
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Supreme Court, in the case of Abhilasha
vs. Parkash and others; (2021) 13 SCC
99, has wrongly and illegally been
interpreted by the trial court. Thus, the
submission is that the impugned judgment
and order is liable to be set aside and the
revision is liable to be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent
no. 2, though opposed the prayer of the
revisionist
on
the
ground
that
the
respondent no. 2 is in need of money, but
could not contradict the legal position as
argued
by
learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist and fairly submits that the
impugned judgment and order may be set
aside and the matter may be remitted to the
concerned Family Court for converting and
deciding afresh under Section 20(3) of
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,
1956 to avoid multiplicity of cases and the
same may be directed to be decided in a
time bound manner. To which there is no
objection by learned counsel for the
revisionist.

5. In view of above and consensus
among learned counsels for the parties that
being legal issue, this revision can be
decided on the material placed on record of
this revision.

6. Having considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties, I have
perused the records.

7. The respondent no. 2 had filed an
application under Section 125 CrPC
claiming maintenance from the revisionist.
The respondent no. 2; daughter of the
revisionist was major in age at the time of
filing of the application and it was
disclosed in the application under Section
125 CrPC.

8. Section 125 CrPC provides that if
any
person
having
sufficient
means
neglects
or
refuses
to
maintain his
legitimate or illegitimate minor child
whether, married or not, unable to maintain
itself, a Magistrate of the first class, upon
proof of such neglect or refusal, order such
person to make a monthly allowance for the
maintenance of such child at such monthly
rate, as such Magistrate deems fit. Proviso
appended to Sub-section (1) provides that
the Magistrate may order the father of a
minor female child referred to in clause (b)
to make such allowance, until she attains
her majority. Section 125(1) CrPC is
extracted here-in-below:

"125. Order for maintenance of
wives, children and parents.-(1) If any
person having sufficient means neglects 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 attained 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, as such Magistrate thinks fit,
and to pay the same to such person as the
Magistrate may from time to time direct:
7 All. Anurag Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1007

Provided that the Magistrate may
order the father of a minor female child
referred to in clause (b) to make such
allowance, 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:

[Provided
further
that
the
Magistrate may, during the pendency of the
proceeding regarding monthly allowance
for the maintenance under this sub-section,
order such person to make a monthly
allowance for the interim maintenance of
his wife or such child, father or mother,
and the expenses of such proceeding which
the Magistrate considers reasonable, and
to pay the same to such person as the
Magistrate may from time to time direct:

Provided also that an application
for the monthly allowance for the interim
maintenance and expenses of proceeding
under the second proviso shall, as far as
possible, be disposed of within sixty days
from the date of the service of notice of the
application to such person.]

Explanation. For the purposes of
this Chapter,-

(a) "minor" means a person who,
under the provisions of the Indian Majority
Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have
attained his majority;

(b) "wife" includes a woman who
has been divorced by, or has obtained a
divorce from, her husband and has not
remarried.

(2) ........

(3) ........

(4) ........

(5) ........

(6)......... U.P. Amendment"

9. In view of above, only a minor
daughter is entitled for maintenance under
Section 125 CrPC. However, a major
daughter is entitled for maintenance, who is
not married if by reason of any physical or
mental abnormality or injury, she is unable
to maintain herself. Thus, the case of the
respondent no. 2 is not covered under
Section 125 CrPC and she was not entitled
for order of maintenance under the said
section.
Learned
trial
court
after
considering it and the provisions of Section
20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act, 1956 (here-in-after referred as Act of
1956) allowed the application filed under
Section 125 CrPC in terms of Section 20(3)
of the Act of 1956 and directed to the
revisionist to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/-
per month as maintenance from the date of
application. Hence, this revision has been
filed.

10. In view of above, this Court has to
see as to whether in an application for
maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, the
order for maintenance can be passed under
Section 20(3) of the Act of 1956. The Act
of 1956 has been enacted to amend and
codify the law relating to adoptions and
maintenance
among
Hindus.
It
has
overriding effect under Section 4 of the
Act. Chapter 3 of the Act deals with
maintenance. Section 20 in Chapter 3 deals
with the maintenance of children and aged
parents. Sub-section (3) of Section 20
provides the obligation of a person to
maintain his or her daughter, who is
unmarried and is unable to maintain herself
out of her own earnings or the property.
Section 20 is extracted hereinbelow:-

"20. Maintenance of children
and aged parents.-(1) Subject to the
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. The amount of maintenance, which
may be allowed under the Act of 1956 has
been provided under Section 23 of the Act.
Sub-section 2 provides the grounds on
which the maintenance shall be awarded to
a wife, children or aged or infirm parents
under the Act. The relevant Sections 23(1)
and 23(2) are extracted here-in-below:-

"23. Amount of maintenance. -
(1) It shall be in the discretion of the Court
to determine whether any, and if so what,
maintenance shall be awarded under the
provisions of this Act, and in doing so, the
Court shall have due regard to the
considerations set out in sub-section (2), or
sub-section (3), as the case may be, so far
as they are applicable.

(2) In determining the amount of
maintenance, if any, to be awarded to a
wife, children or aged or infirm parents
under this Act, regard shall be had to-

(a) the position and status of the
parties;

(b) the reasonable wants of the
claimant;

(c) if the claimant is living
separately, whether the claimant is justified
in doing so;

(d)the value of the claimant's
property and any income derived from such
property, or from the claimant's own
earnings or from any other source;

(e) the number of persons entitled
to maintenance under this Act.

3. In determining the amount of
maintenance .........."

12. Section 24 of the Act of 1956
provides that no person shall be entitled to
claim maintenance under this Chapter, if he
or she has ceased to be a Hindu by
conversion to another religion.

13. In view of above, the maintenance
to a daughter, who has attained majority
can be allowed under the Act of 1956, if
she has not ceased to be a Hindu by
conversion to another religion and unable
to maintain herself out of her own earnings
or other property upon consideration of the
factors given in Sub-section (2) of Section
23 of Act of 1956.

14. The Family Courts Act, 1984
(here-in-after referred as Act of 1984) has
been
enacted
to
provide
for
the
establishment of Family Courts with a view
to promote conciliation in, and secure
speedy settlement of disputes relating to
marriage and family affairs and for matters
connected therewith. The establishment of
Family Court has been given in Section 3
of the Act. The jurisdiction conferred on
the Family Courts has been given under
7 All. Anurag Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1009
Section 7, which is extracted here-inbelow:-

"7. Jurisdiction.-(1) Subject to
the other provisions of this Act, a Family
Court shall-

(a) have and exercise all the
jurisdiction exercisable by any district
court or any subordinate civil court under
any law for the time being in force in
respect of suits and proceedings of the
nature referred to in the Explanation; and

(b) be deemed, for the purposes
of exercising such jurisdiction under such
law, to be a district court or, as the case
may be, such subordinate civil court for the
area to which the jurisdiction of the Family
Court extends.

Explanation. - The suits and
proceedings referred to in this sub-section
are suits and proceedings of the following
nature, namely: -

(a) a suit or proceeding between
the parties to a marriage for a decree of
nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage
to be null and void or, as the case may be,
annulling the marriage) or restitution of
conjugal rights or judicial separation or
dissolution of marriage;

(b) a suit or proceeding for a
declaration as to the validity of a marriage
or as to the matrimonial status of any
person;

(c) a suit or proceeding between
the parties to a marriage with respect to
the property of the parties or of either of
them;

(d) a suit or proceeding for an
order or injunction in circumstance arising
out of a marital relationship;

(e) a suit or proceeding for a
declaration as to the legitimacy of any
person;

(f) a suit or proceeding for
maintenance;

(g) a suit or proceeding in
relation to the guardianship of the person
or the custody of, or access to, any minor.

(2) Subject to the other provisions
of this Act, a Family Court shall also have
and exercise?

(a) the jurisdiction exercisable by
a Magistrate of the first class under
Chapter
IX
(relating
to
order
for
maintenance of wife, children and parents)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2
of 1974); and

(b) such other jurisdiction as may
be conferred on it by any other enactment."

15. The procedure generally to be
followed by the Family Courts has been
given in Section 10 of Act of 1984, which
is extracted here-in-below:-

"10. Procedure generally.-

(1) Subject to the other provisions
of this Act and the rules, the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908) and of any other law for the time
being in force shall apply to the suits and
proceedings other than the proceedings
under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before a
Family Court and for the purposes of the
said provisions of the Code, a Family
Court shall be deemed to be a civil court
and shall have all the powers of such court.

(2) Subject to the other provisions
of this Act and the rules, the provisions of
1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) or the rules made thereunder, shall
apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX
of that Code before a Family Court.

(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2) shall prevent a Family
Court from laying down its own procedure
with a view to arrive at a settlement in
respect of the subject-matter of the suit or
proceedings or at the truth of the facts
alleged by the one party and denied by the
other."

16. The execution of decrees and
orders passed by the Family Court has been
given under Section 18, which is extracted
here-in-below:-

"18. Execution of decrees and
orders.- (1) A decree or an order, other
than an order under Chapter IX of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974), passed by a Family Court shall have
the same force and effect as a decree or
order of a civil court and shall be executed
in the same manner as is prescribed by the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
for the execution of decrees and orders.

(2) An order passed by a Family
Court under Chapter IX of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall
be executed in the manner prescribed for
the execution of such order by that Code.

(3) A decree or order may be
executed either by the Family Court which
passed it or by the other Family Court or
ordinary civil court to which it is sent for
execution."

17. Section 19 of the Act of 1984
provides
for
appeal.
Sub-section
(1)
provides that an appeal from every
judgment
and
order,
not
being
an
interlocutory order, of a Family Court to
the High Court both on facts and on law.
Sub-section (4) added by amendment by
Act 59 of 1991 w.e.f. 28.12.1991 provides
that the High Court may, of its own motion
or otherwise, call for and examine the
record of any proceeding in which the
Family Court situate within its jurisdiction
passed an order under Chapter IX of CrPC.
Section 19 of the Act of 1984 is extracted
here-in-below:

"19.
Appeal.-(1)
Save
as
provided
in
sub-section
(2)
and
notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
or in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law, an
appeal shall lie from every judgment or
order, not being an interlocutory order, of
a Family Court to the High Court both on
facts and on law.

(2) No appeal shall lie from a
decree or order passed by the Family Court
with the consent of the parties or from an
order passed under Chapter IX of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974):Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to any appeal pending
before a High Court or any order passed
under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) before the
commencement of the Family Courts
(Amendment) Act, 1991 (59 of 1991).

(3) Every appeal under this
section shall be preferred within a period
of thirty days from the date of the judgment
or order of a Family Court.

(4) The High Court may, of its
own motion or otherwise, call for and
examine the record of any proceeding in
7 All. Anurag Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1011
which the Family Court situate within its
jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter
IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of
satisfying itself as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of the order, not being
an interlocutory order, and, as to the
regularity of such proceeding.

(5) Except as aforesaid, no
appeal or revision shall lie to any court
from any judgment, order or decree of a
Family Court.

(6) An appeal preferred under
sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench
consisting of two or more Judges."

18. In view of Sections 7, 10, 18 and
19, it is apparent that a Family Court
excercises all the jurisdiction excercisable
by any district court or any subordinate
civil court in respect of suit(s) and
proceedings of the nature referred to in
explanation in Section 7 of Act of 1984 and
according to Explanation (f), a suit or
proceeding for maintenance can be filed
before the Family Court. As per Subsection (2) of Section 7, a Family Court
shall also have and exercise jurisdiction
exercisable by the Magistrate of the First
Class under Chapter IX (relating to order
for maintenance of wife, children and
parents) of CrPC. Thus, both the powers
have been conferred upon the Family
Courts. However, these are to be exercised
under the respective procedural law as
provided under Section 10, according to
which, the provisions of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (here-in-after referred as
CPC) and of any other law for the time
being shall apply to the suit(s) and
proceedings other than the proceedings
under Chapter IX of CrPC before a Family
Court and for the said purpose, as per Subsection (1), a Family Court shall be deemed
to be a civil court and shall have powers of
such court. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of
the Act of 1984 provides that subject to this
Act and Rules made thereunder, the
provisions of CrPC or the rules made
thereunder shall apply to the proceedings
under Chapter IX of CrPC before a Family
Court.
Similarly,
the
procedure
for
execution of decrees and orders has been
provided under Section 18 of the Act of
1984, which shall be under the respective
codes. Further the remedies provided in
both the cases is different. The judgment
and order passed in a suit for maintenance
dealt with in accordance with CPC can be
challenged in an Appeal before this Court,
whereas the order passed under Chapter IX
of CrPC dealt with in accordance with
CrPC can be challenged in a Revision
before this Court.

19. Section 9 of CPC provides that the
courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits
of a civil nature excepting suits of which
their cognizance is either expressly or
impliedly barred.

20. In view of above, a suit or
proceeding for maintenance under Section
20(3) of Act of 1956 is to be dealt with in
accordance with the procedure prescribed
under CPC and any other law applicable on
such suits and proceedings and for the said
purpose the Family Courts shall exercise
the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of
suits under CPC and proceedings under
Section 125 CrPC, which is under Chapter
IX of CPC, is to be dealt with in
accordance with the procedure prescribed
under CrPC and exercising the jurisdiction
as
Magistrate
of
First
Class
and
accordingly, the execution is to be made of
the decrees and orders and separate
remedies can be availed for challenging the
orders in respective proceedings.
1012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. The Family Courts have been
established under Section 3 of the Act of
1984 for area having population exceeding
one million and in the areas where the
population is less than one million, the
suites and the proceedings are being dealt
with by the respective civil courts and
criminal courts. Thus, it is apparent that the
proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are to
be dealt with as per the procedure
prescribed
under
Section
126
CrPC
exercising jurisdiction of Magistrate First
Class, whereas the proceedings under
Section 20(3) of the Act of 1956 are of civil
in nature, which is to be dealt with by the
Family Courts as District or Sub-ordinate
Civil Court.

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Abhilasha vs. Parkash and others
(Supra), held that the purpose and
objective of 125 CrPC is to provide
immediate relief to applicant in a summary
proceedings, whereas right under Section
20 read with Section 3(b) of Act of 1956
contains
larger
right,
which
needs
determination by a Civil Court, hence for
the larger claims as enshrined under
Section 20 of the Act of 1956, the
proceedings need to be initiated under
Section 20 of the Act of 1956 and the
Magistrate, while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to determine the
claims contemplated by Act of 1956,
cannot decide the proceedings under
Section 20 of the Act of 1956 determining
maintenance in accordance with law. The
relevant paragraphs 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and
39 are extracted here-in-below:

36. The purpose and object of
Section 125 Cr.P.C. as noted above is to
provide immediate relief to applicant in a
summary proceedings, whereas right under
Section 20 read with Section 3(b) of Act,
1956 contains larger right, which needs
determination by a Civil Court, hence for
the larger claims as enshrined under
Section 20, the proceedings need to be
initiated under Section 20 of the Act and
the legislature never contemplated to
burden the Magistrate while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to
determine the claims contemplated by Act,
1956.

37. There are three more reasons
due to which we are satisfied that the
orders passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate as well as learned Additional
Sessions Judge in the revision was not
required to be interfered with by the High
Court in exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. The reasons are as
follows:-

(i) The application was filed by
the mother of the appellant in the year
2002 claiming maintenance on her behalf
as well as on behalf of her two sons and
appellant, who was minor at that time. The
appellant being minor at that time when
application was filed on 17.10.2002, there
was no occasion for any pleading on behalf
of the appellant that she was not able to
maintain herself even after attaining the
majority.

Section 20 of the Act, 1956 on
which reliance has been placed by learned
counsel for the appellant recognising the
right
of
maintenance
of
unmarried
daughter by a person subject to the
condition when ?the parents or the
unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is
unable to maintain themselves/herself out
of their/her own earnings or other
property?. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge noticed the submission of the
respondent that appellant did not come in
7 All. Anurag Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1013
the witness box even when she had attained
majority to claim that she was unable to
maintain herself, which contention has
been noted in paragraph 12 of the
judgment
of
the
learned
Additional
Sessions Judge.

(ii) From the judgment of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, another fact,
which is relevant to be noticed is that
applicant Nos. 2 to 4, which included the
appellant also had filed the proceedings
under Section 20 of the Act, 1956 being
Suit No. 6 of 2001, which was dismissed as
withdrawn on 17.12.2012.

(iii) Another factor, which need to
be noticed that in the counter affidavit filed
in this appeal, there was a specific
pleading of the respondent that a plot of
land was purchased in name of the
appellant admeasuring 214 sq. Yds. In the
rejoinder affidavit filed by the appellant, it
has been admitted that the plot was
purchased on 31.07.2000 from the joint
income earned by mother and father of the
appellant, which had been agreed to be
sold in the year 2012 for a total sale
consideration of Rs.11,77,000/-. In the
rejoinder
affidavit,
an
affidavit
of
prospective purchaser has been filed by the
appellant, where it is mentioned that
agreement to sell had taken place between
appellant and Arjun on 31.07.2000 for a
sale consideration of Rs.11,77,000/-, out of
which appellant had received Rs.10,89,000
as earnest money.

38. ............

39. In facts of the present case the
ends of justice be served by giving liberty
to the appellant to take recourse to Section
20(3) of the Act, 1956, if so advised, for
claiming any maintenance against her
father. Subject to liberty as above, the
appeal is dismissed.

23.
The
Family
Court,
while
exercising both the powers, has jurisdiction
to decide under Section 125 CrPC as well
as the suit under Section 20 of the Act of
1956, therefore, the Family Court can
exercise jurisdiction under both the act and
in appropriate case, can grant maintenance
to married daughter, even if she has
become major under Section 20 of the Act
of 1956.

24. In view of above, it cannot be
disputed that the application filed under
Section 125 CrPC can be dealt with and the
maintenance can be granted under Section
20 of the Act of 1956 by the Family Courts,
if the unmarried daughter claiming the
maintenance has become major. Thus, in
case during pendency of the application
under Section 125 CrPC, a daughter
becomes major, the maintenance can be
allowed to her invoking the provisions of
Section 20 of the Act of 1956, but in the
present case, the application was filed by
the daughter i.e. respondent no. 2 after
attaining the age of majority, therefore, it
was not a case in which his daughter had
become major during pendency of the
application and maintenance could have
been awarded in the same proceeding, that
too without considering the factors for
determination
of
maintenance
under
Section 20(3) read with Sections 23 and 24
of Act of 1956. However, since both the
powers can be exercised by the Family
Court, therefore, this Court is of the view
that if the application has been filed under
Section 125 CrPC, it can be got converted
into a suit under Section 20 of the Act of
1956 as it is to be dealt by the same court
and after converting under the relevant
provision and dealing with the application
1014 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as suit for maintenance and after adopting
the procedure as prescribed and upon
consideration of pleadings and evidence on
record under the provision of Act of 1956,
if the Family Court finds that the case for
maintenance is made out, the court can
order for maintenance to avoid multiplicity
of suits, but not on the basis of summary
proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. The
remedy for challenging the order passed
under both the proceedings are also
separate as discussed above.

25. In view of above, this Court is of
the view that the Family Court, while
deciding the application under Section 125
CrPC in the present case could not have
allowed the maintenance under Section
20(3) of the Act of 1956 without
considering the relevant factors to be
considered and recording finding in regard
to those, but the learned Family Court
without considering the law as discussed
above and misinterpreting the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Abhilasha
vs.
Parkash
and
others
(Supra), allowed the application under
Section 125 CrPC and awarded the
maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Act
of 1956. Thus, the same is not sustainable
in the eyes of law and liable to be set-aside.

26. In view of above and the
consensus among learned counsel for the
parties, the revision is allowed. The
impugned judgment and order 30.07.2024
passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 280 of
2023; Kumari Neha Pandey vs. Anurag
Pandey under Section 125 of CrPC by
Principal Judge, Family Court, District
Sultanpur is hereby set aside. The matter is
remitted back to the concerned Family
Court, where the parties shall appear on
18.08.2025 on which date an application
may be moved by the respondent no. 2 for
converting the application under Section
125 CrPC into a suit under Section 20(3) of
the Act of 1956 and the Family Court shall
consider and pass appropriate order thereon
in
accordance
with
law
and
the
observations made here-in-above in this
order on the same day or within two weeks
thereafter and the Family Court shall
proceed accordingly and in such case make
endeavour to decide the suit expeditiously
and preferably within a period of six
months
without
granting
unnecessary
adjournment to either of the parties. It is
also expected that the parties shall assist the
court in expeditious disposal of the case.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 1014
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1408 of 2024

Bilal Ahmad & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Arun Sinha, Ram Chandra Singh, Umang
Agarwal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Manik Mishra, Ramakar Shukla,
B/R0865
Issue for Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in
summoning persons, earlier exonerated
during investigation, under Section 319 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, based
on the testimony of prosecution witnesses
recorded during trial, and whether the
revisional court can interfere with such
discretionary exercise of power by the
trial court.

Headnotes