ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J. - (1.) THE opposite party herein, who happens to be the daughter of the petitioner, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Serampore claiming maintenance of Rs.5,000/ - per month from him. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Serampore, however, rejected the said application on the ground that no daughter after attainment of majority, is entitled to maintenance unless her case falls within the ambit of section 125 (1)(c) CrPC. The opposite party challenged the said order in a criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly, when the said criminal revision was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the court concerned for its reconsideration. While remanding back the matter, the learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly directed that pending disposal of the main maintenance proceedings, the petitioner shall go on paying a sum of Rs.4,000/ - per month as interim maintenance to the opposite party. Accordingly, the aforesaid maintenance proceeding was commenced de novo and the learned Judicial Magistrate allowed the same and awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/ - per month as the monthly maintenance to the opposite party. Hence, this criminal revision.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the daughter having already attained majority, is not entitled to any maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Swapan Kumar Dey ­Vs - Jayita @ Chaita Roy reported in (2011) 3 C Cr LR (Cal) 548. He submitted that decision was based on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amarendra Kumar Paul ­Vs - Maya Paul & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 C Cr LR (SC) 800 and contended that the same are the authority on the issue and accordingly the order impugned cannot be sustained. In addition to the above, it is contended that in any event, the quantum of maintenance is too excessive, inasmuch as, the petitioner has to maintain his second wife and his two other daughters, who have born out of the second marriage.
(3.) NOW , considering the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find that the most crucial issue before this Court is whether the daughter after attainment of majority, is entitled to maintenance or not in terms of the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. There is no dispute that in the case of Swapan Kumar De ­Vs - Jayita @ Chaita Roy (Supra), a co -ordinate Bench of this Court relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amarendra Kumar Paul ­Vs - Maya Paul & Ors. (Supra) and held that the daughter after attainment of majority, is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. However, I find that during the hearing of the said criminal revision along with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amarendra Kumar Paul ­Vs - Maya Paul & Ors. (Supra) and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Jugtawat ­Vs - Manju Lata & Ors. reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 1147, was also referred. Although in the case of Jagdish Jugtawat ­Vs - Manju Lata & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court held even after attainment of majority a daughter is entitled to maintenance from her father but in the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amarendra Kumar Paul ­Vs - Maya Paul & Ors. (Supra), the Apex Court answered the question in negative. However, the co -ordinate Bench of this court held that daughter after attainment of majority is not entitled to maintenance from her father on the following observation.;