Sonia Duggal v. Tilak Raj
!"#$%&#%' ()*+,-*./0/+1 %'
!+, -( % ' +. -( %
!
"
)
!
!"!# $
!% % &
+ %
/ 01
'
'
( % %
( % ( ) % *
%
%
!% & + %
% %
( ( ) -( + %
%
2 3 %
%
%
%
+ %
% 4 %
%
% 4
3 %
( -!5 )
% $
/& 01 / /& 01
% % (%
%
% %
/ 01
/& 01
- % $1 14 %
3 since the petitioner h has now turned major, she would d be precluded f from seeking maintenance in v view of Section 125 (1)(c) of f Cr.P.C. & 6 ( %
% $ %
% (% %
6 $(
% $ $ % ( (
% $ !%
&
7
% % $
(
) $ $ $ $ A three e Judge bench of the Hon'ble e t in Abhilasha vs. Prakash 202 20 AIR SC 4355 has held that a Supreme Court a major unmarrie ed daughter, who does not suffe fer from any physical or mental l disability, shall l not be entitled to maintenance e from her father under Section n 125 Cr.P.C. Ho owever, she will continue to ha ave the remedy available under r Section 20(3) o of the Hindu Adoption and Ma aintenance Act, 1956. Speaking g through Justice Ashok Bhushan, the following w was observed: !
"
"#$% &'(
) ) # % *
"'
'
0##0# &12 * "/ % &'(
* "'0##0# &12 # +* "'
#$*
* "'
0##0# &12 2
# , 0 # $ - # . * "/% &'(
# 8 -
)
+ (
$
!% &
( %
%
) - %
%
'
% %
%
) % % % % * -% %% (
)
!"!#
6 $( ( remed dy available under Section 20(3
3) of the Hindu Adoption and d Maintenance A ct, 1956. +3*45*6 (i) 9:
%' ! "
+0 ;0# ;0#