In a significant judgment interpreting Section 488 of the Jammu & Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has ruled that adult, unmarried daughters who are physically and mentally fit cannot seek maintenance from their father under this provision.

The ruling came on a petition filed by Abdul Raheem Bhat, a senior citizen, challenging a 2019 order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anantnag, which directed him to pay ₹1,200 per month each to his two adult daughters. This order was later upheld by the Sessions Court in 2021, prompting Bhat to approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, invoking its inherent jurisdiction.

The case had an unusual trajectory. In 2014, Bhat’s three children — two daughters and a son — all of whom were adults at the time, filed a joint petition under Section 488 seeking maintenance. In response, Bhat filed a counter-application the same year, also under Section 488, claiming that he was dependent on his son for sustenance. In 2017, the Magistrate allowed Bhat's plea, directing the son to pay ₹2,000 per month to his father.

Despite this, in 2019, the Magistrate ruled in favor of the daughters and ordered maintenance of ₹1,200 each from the father, with effect from the original date of filing in 2014. No relief was granted to the son under the daughters' petition.

Justice Rahul Bharti, while deciding the case, referred to Section 488(1)(c) of the erstwhile J&K CrPC, which permits a claim for maintenance by a major child only if the child is unable to maintain themselves due to a physical or mental disability or injury. Noting that the daughters were able-bodied and of majority age, the Court held that they were not entitled to maintenance under the provision.

“The two unmarried daughters of the petitioner, being majors and not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or injury rendering them unable to maintain themselves, could not have invoked Section 488 CrPC,” the Court observed.

The High Court found that this critical statutory condition was overlooked by both the Magistrate and the Sessions Court. Terming their decisions as legally unsustainable, the Court set aside both orders and quashed the maintenance liability imposed on the petitioner