Unmarried Daughter Entitled to Maintenance from Mother and Sibling under Section 125 Cr.P.C. until Marriage.

The petitioners (mother and elder daughter) challenged an order of the Family Court, Mysuru, which granted maintenance and marriage expenses to the respondents (younger daughter and son).

The father of the respondents died in 2013, and Petitioner No. 2 obtained a compassionate appointment as an SDA at MUDA after giving an undertaking to maintain the family.

The respondents filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., alleging neglect despite the petitioners having sufficient means.

The petitioners contended that since the respondents had attained majority and were well-educated, they were not entitled to maintenance under Section 125.

1. Whether major children (a daughter and a son) are entitled to maintenance from their mother and sibling under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether an undertaking given at the time of compassionate appointment creates a liability for maintenance despite the claimants reaching majority.

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates maintenance for minor children and those unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormality.

Amrendra Kumar Paul v. Maya Paul and Others (2009) 8 SCC 359, which establishes that the right to maintenance for children under Section 125 generally ceases once they attain majority.

Principles of "adverse inference" regarding non-disclosure of income and the contractual/ethical nature of undertakings given for compassionate appointments.

The Court noted that Petitioner No. 2 failed to disclose her actual salary, leading to an adverse inference that she possessed sufficient income to provide support.

Regarding Respondent No. 2 (the son), the Court held that since he had attained the age of majority and completed his education, he was no longer entitled to maintenance under the statutory framework.

Regarding Respondent No. 1 (the daughter), the Court observed that she remained unmarried and, despite reaching majority, upheld her right to maintenance and marriage expenses, citing the increased cost of living and the specific undertaking given by Petitioner No. 2 to care for the family to secure the deceased father's job.

(i) upholding Respondent No. 1's (daughter) entitlement to monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000 until her marriage and the right to marriage expenses; (ii) setting aside all maintenance and educational expenses awarded to Respondent No. 2 (son) on the grounds of his majority; and (iii) sustaining the order for litigation expenses of Rs. 2,500 each.