# Mustakim Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 212
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-02-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3781 of 2014
- **Bench:** Pankaj Naqvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mustakim-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43282
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Cr.P.C. -Section 125-Maintenance-whether
can be claimed by unmarried Muslim
daughter -even on achieving her majorityheld-'yes'.
Held: Para-11
The Apex Court in the case of Noor Saba
Khatoon (supra), after examining the
personal law of muslims, has already held
that a muslim father is liable to maintain
his major daughter till such time she is not
married. It is not disputed that O.P. No.2 is
major and that she is not yet married.
Case Law discussed:
2009 (3) SCC (Crl.) 868; 2008 (62) ACC 591;
1997 (6) SCC 233; 2002 (5) SCC 422; 2004
Crl. L.J. 573; 2008 (62) ACC 591.

## Text

212
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the provisions of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 as is evident from the
Form 7 memo which was prepared by the
Food Inspector of raiding party and the
sample was also sent to the Public Analyst
and all the exercise was done by the raiding
party when the raid was done under the
provisions
of
Prevention
of
Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 and the papers were
also prepared according to the said Act,
copies of which has been annexed as S.A. 1
supplementary affidavit and the present FIR
appears to have been lodged by opposite
party
no.2
by
misinterpreting
the
Government Order dated 11.5.2010 though
the complaint filed against the revisionist
under the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act for the offence in question is still
pending and going on, hence the proceedings
against the revisionist on the basis of charge
sheet for prosecuting him u/s 272 IPC is bad
in the eyes of law. Moreover no offence u/s
272 IPC is made out against the revisionist.
Thus the impugned order passed by the court
below and the proceedings of the aforesaid
case is hereby quashed.
9. The petition stands allowed.
10. It is made clear that the
proceedings against the revisionist u/s
7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 which is stated to be pending
shall go on in accordance with law and be
concluded expeditiously in accordance
with law within the period of six months
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order before the trial court
without
granting
unnecessary
adjournment to either of the parties if
there is no legal impediment.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ NAQVI, J.
Criminal Revision No. 3781 of 2014
Mustakim
...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sumit Goyal
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.
Cr.P.C. -Section 125-Maintenance-whether
can be claimed by unmarried Muslim
daughter -even on achieving her majorityheld-'yes'.
Held: Para-11
The Apex Court in the case of Noor Saba
Khatoon (supra), after examining the
personal law of muslims, has already held
that a muslim father is liable to maintain
his major daughter till such time she is not
married. It is not disputed that O.P. No.2 is
major and that she is not yet married.
Case Law discussed:
2009 (3) SCC (Crl.) 868; 2008 (62) ACC 591;
1997 (6) SCC 233; 2002 (5) SCC 422; 2004
Crl. L.J. 573; 2008 (62) ACC 591.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.)
Heard Sri Sumit Goyal, learned
counsel for revisionist and Ms. Anjum
Haq, learned A.G.A.
"Whether
an
unmarried
major
Muslim daughter who is unable to
maintain herself, can claim maintenance
from her father under Section 125 Cr.P.C,
is an issue which has fallen for
consideration in this revision."
1. Ms. Anjum/O.P. No.2, daughter
of the revisionist, claimed maintenance
1 All] Mustakim Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
213
from her father under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The trial court on 30.6.2007 granted
maintenance @ Rs.1000/- per month,
which was paid for certain duration.
However, as maintenance awarded, was
insufficient to maintain O.P. No.2, she
filed an application for enhancement
which came to be rejected on 28.5.2013
on the ground that after she had attained
majority, she forfeits her right to claim
maintenance. On 14.5.2013 as arrears of
Rs.12000/- for the period 31.5.2012 to
31.5.2013 remained unpaid, she initiated
proceedings for recovery of the said
amount. The application was opposed on
the ground that once she had attained
majority on 10.3.2011, she is not entitled
to claim maintenance. The Principal
Judge
(Family
Court),
Saharanpur
dismissed the objection of the father on
16.9.2004 on the ground that the liability
of a father to maintain his daughter under
Section 125 Cr.P.C, continues till her
marriage, which is impugned herein.
2. It is urged on behalf of revisionist
that the liability of a father to maintain a
daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
continues till such time, she has not
attained majority and the view taken by
the court below is in the teeth of the
judgments of the Apex Court in the case
of Amarendra Kumar Paul v. Maya Paul
and others, 2009(3) SCC (Crl.) 868 and
that of this Court in the case of Amod
Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and
others, 2008 (62) ACC 591.
3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. would
submit that the view taken by the court
below is sustainable in law and the
revision is liable to be dismissed.
4. An issue similar, to the one raised
herein, came up for consideration before
the Apex Court in the case of Noor Saba
Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim, 1997 (6) SCC
233. For ready reference, the issue is
extracted hereunder:
1. Short but interesting question
involved in this appeal, by special leave,
is whether the children of Muslim
parents are entitled to grant of
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
for the period till they attain majority
or are able to maintain themselves
whichever date is earlier or in the case
of female children till they get married
or is their right restricted to the grant
of maintenance only for a period of two
years prescribed under Section 3(1)(b)
of the Muslim Women (Protection of
Rights
on
Divorce)
Act,
1986
notwithstanding Section 125 Cr.P.C."
5. The Apex Court after analyzing
the scheme of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and
that of the personal law, held that both
under the personal law and the statutory
law (Section 125 Cr.P.C.), the obligation
of a Muslim father, having sufficient
means, to maintain his minor children,
unable to maintain themselves, is to last
till they attain majority and in case of
females till they get married. The precise
answer returned by the Apex Court is
extracted in paragraph 11 as hereunder:-
11. Thus, our answer to the
question posed in the earlier part of the
opinion is that the children of Muslim
parents
are
entitled
to
claim
maintenance
under
Section
125,
Cr.P.C. for the period till they attain
majority or are able to maintain
themselves, whichever is earlier, and in
case of females, till they get married,
and this right is not restricted, affected
or controlled by divorcee wife's right to
214
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
claim maintenance for maintaining the
infant child/children in her custody for
a period of two years from the date of
birth of the child concerned under
Section 3(1)(b) of the 1986 Act. In other
words Section 3(1)(b) of the 1986 Act
does not in any way affect the rights of
the minor children of divorced Muslim
parents to claim maintenance from
their father under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
till they attain majority or are able to
maintain themselves, or in the case of
females, till they are married.
6. The decision in Noor Saba
Khatoon (supra) was followed by the
Apex Court in the case of Jagdish
Jugtawat v. Manju Lata and others, 2002
(5) SCC 422. In the latter case, an
unmarried major daughter was granted
maintenance by the Family Court. The
father challenged the said order in
revision before the High Court on the
ground that once she had attained
majority, she is not entitled to claim any
maintenance. The High Court accepted
the legal position that under Section 125
Cr.P.C, a minor daughter is entitled to
maintenance from her parents till she
attains majority, but declined to interfere
with the order of the Family Court on the
ground
that
her
right
to
claim
maintenance remains intact under Section
20(3) of
the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act. The High Court thus
maintained the order of the Family Court
with a view to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings. An appeal preferred before
the Apex Court, was dismissed.
7. A similar view has also been
taken by the Karnataka High Court in the
case of Smt. Fousia Banu and others v.
Mohammed Saleem, ILR 2013 Karnataka
6009 and by the Patna High Court in the
case of Subhash Ray Chaudhary v. State
of Bihar, 2004 Crl. L.J. 573.
8. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis,
position which emerges is that an order
granting maintenance to an unmarried
Muslim major daughter, may not be
strictly justified under Section 125
Cr.P.C, yet such an order is not liable to
be interfered with a view to prevent
multiplicity of the proceedings, provided
the daughter who is unable to maintain
herself, has a right to claim maintenance
from her father till her marriage under the
personal law.
9. The judgment in the case of
Amarendra Kumar Paul (supra) is not
applicable on the facts of the present case,
firstly, in view of the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Noor Saba
Khatoon (supra) and that of the Jagdish
Jugtawat (supra), and secondly the case of
Amarendra Kumar Paul (supra) related to
the period of limitation for filing an
execution application under Section 125
Cr.P.C., which has no application to the
issue involved in the present case.
10. Now a look at the judgment of
this Court in the case of Amod Kumar
Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others,
2008 (62) ACC 591. This judgment takes
a view that upon attaining majority an
illegitimate / legitimate child including an
unmarried daughter, is not entitled to
claim maintenance, but it does not take
into consideration the judgments of the
Apex Court in the cases of Noor Saba
Khatoon and Jagdish Jugtawat (both
supra), wherein it has been held that
notwithstanding the ineligibility of a
major unmarried daughter to claim
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C,
yet an order granting maintenance to such
1 All] Ram Sewak Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
215
a daughter is not liable to be interfered
with a view to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings provided she has a right to
claim maintenance from her father under
the personal law.
11. The Apex Court in the case of
Noor
Saba
Khatoon
(supra),
after
examining the personal law of muslims,
has already held that a muslim father is
liable to maintain his major daughter till
such time she is not married. It is not
disputed that O.P. No.2 is major and that
she is not yet married.
12. It is held that notwithstanding the
ineligibility of a muslim major unmarried
daughter to claim maintenance under
Section 125 Cr.P.C, yet an order granting
maintenance to her is not liable to be
interfered, with a view to avoid the
multiplicity of proceedings, as such a
daughter, who is unable to maintain
herself can claim maintenance from her
father under the personal law.
13. Thus in view of the aforesaid
discussion,
there
is
no
illegality/
impropriety in the impugned order.
14. No other plea is urged.
15. The revision is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
Service Single No. 4735 of 2013
Ram Sewak Gupta
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.S. Yadav
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226withholding-amount
of
gratuity
and
pension-on date of retirement neither any
departmental
nor
criminal
proceeding
pending-nor
after
retirement
initiated
after seeking permission under Regulation
351-A
of
Civil
Services
Regulationcontention of Respondent-towards loss
caused based upon audit report-amount
withheld-held-misconceived
unless
in
departmental proceeding such liability of
less fixed audit report can not be reliedorder withholding pension and gratuity
quashed-payment
be
made
within
6
weeks.
Held: Para-8 & 17
8.
Admittedly,
no
departmental
proceedings were instituted, neither the
same were pending against the petitioner
on the date of retirement. It is also not
denied that no departmental proceedings,
after seeking approval of the competent
authority under Regulation 351-A of the
Civil
Service
Regulations,
have
been
initiated against the petitioner.
17. Merely on the basis of said audit report
without the charge of causing loss being
established in a full-fledged departmental
inquiry, no recovery of alleged loss caused
to the State Exchequer can be made.
Case Law discussed:
Spl. Appl D 1278 of 2013; 1993 (7) SLR 706;
2006 (110) FLR 101.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
Upadhyaya, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents.