Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 talks about the "order of maintenance of wives, children and parents."

There have been several judgements by the Supreme Court and High Courts of various states that have expanded the scope of section 125 CrPC and included those persons who are not mentioned in the provision but are covered under it. These are:

1. Father or mother entitled to maintenance from his or her daughter.
2. Major son or sons entitled to maintenance from their father.
3. Female partners in a live-in relationship with a man, whether married or not, entitled to maintenance.

In the case of daughters, both the son and daughter have a responsibility, according to section 125(1)(d), to support their parents who are unable to support themselves. The purpose of this is to offer a speedy solution that will spare dependents from being forced into homelessness and poverty. The argument that a daughter, after she is married, is no longer obligated to support her parents, is not one that can be accepted, even in the event that the parents are unable to do so on their own.

In the famous case of Nanak Chand vs. Chandra Kishore Agarwal (1970)[1], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the term "child" in Section 488 of the CrPC, 1898 does not mean only a minor son or minor daughter and that the phrase "unable to maintain itself" highlights the true constraint. It does not matter whether the son was an adult or a minor; if he is unable to maintain himself, his father was required to provide maintenance to him. This obligation exists regardless of the fact that the son is minor or major.

The Domestic Violence Act of 2005 and the particular facts of each case will be considered by the court when deciding who is entitled to maintenance in a live-in relationship. Most people still don't recognize this form of relationship, however the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 guarantees the right to alimony for the victimized live-in partner.

DAUGHTERS LIABLE TO PAY MAINTENANCE TO HER PARENTS
As per S-125(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate from time to time direct."

Because of section 125(1)(d), it is the obligation of both the son and the daughter to support their parent financially if that parent is unable to do so on his or her own. The goal of this provision is to serve a social purpose by providing a brief remedy for the purpose of saving dependents from being forced into a state of poverty and vagrancy.

There is no justification for excluding the daughter from the social need to sustain her parents, since doing so would violate the moral commitment that binds a son as well as a daughter to maintain their elderly parents.[6]

In section 125(1)(d), the phrase "his father or mother" refers to both men and women. Even though the term "son" was used in the first section of the report that the Joint Committee on the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 compiled, the usage of the phrase "children" in the section that followed suggests that both sons and daughters are included in the section.

The argument that a daughter, after she is married, is no longer obligated to support her parents, even in the event that the parents are unable to do so on their own, cannot be accepted. After a daughter is married, she does not cease being a daughter to either of her parents.

Therefore, the parents will have the legal right to file a maintenance suit against their daughter, regardless of whether or not the daughter is married, provided that the other requirements outlined in this section are satisfied. In order for a father or mother to get maintenance against their daughter, the court must be satisfied that the daughter has adequate means separate from the means of her husband. To top it all off, the court must be satisfied that either the father or the mother cannot provide for themselves. Only then will the court issue an order for maintenance.[7]

As stated by S-4 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007[8], a parent or grandparent who can't take care of themselves can get maintenance and support from one or more of their children. The responsibility of the children to sustain their parents extends to meeting those of their parents' requirements that are necessary for them to live a life that is similar to others.[9]

CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR CLAIMING MAINTENANCE
If we give the wording employed in subsection (d) of section 125 a simple interpretation, it would seem that there are only two conditions in which a parent is eligible to receive maintenance, and they are as follows:

1. That the parents be unable to provide for themselves.
2. The individual against whom a court issues an order according to Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code must have the financial resources to take care of his or her parents but refuses to do so.

In Vasant vs. Govindrao Upasrao Naik[10], the High Court of Bombay stated that a married daughter is morally obliged to maintain her parents in a situation where the parents lodged a plea seeking maintenance from their eldest child under Section 125(1)(d) of the CrPC, which gives courts the right to compel somebody to maintain their father or mother provided that they possess adequate means.

The argument that a married girl solely has duties towards her husband's family and not towards her own parents was gunned dead by the High Court. The court held, "In this instance, a married daughter who proven to be working as a Software Engineer in the United States and having adequate resources is obligated to support her parents since she is in a better financial position to do so."[11]

In the case of Areefa Beevi Versus Dr. K.M. Sahib[12], the Sessions Judge while giving his decision said that:

"It is true that S. 125 has not specifically provided that a daughter is also liable to maintain her parents. The expressions used in Sec. 125 are "any person", "his father or mother" and "such person". These expressions are not defined in the Code.

Sec. 2 (y) of the Code says:
"Words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Penal Code, 1860 have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that code". So we have to refer to the Penal Code, 1860. Section. 8 of the IPC reads: "The pronoun "he" and its derivatives are used of any person, whether male or female".[13]

Therefore, the expression "his father or mother" occurring in Sec. 125 of the Cr. P.C., must be taken to have the meaning 'her father or mother'."

When trying to determine the objective of the legislature, it is necessary to read sections 8 and 11 of the IPC together. After doing so, the Judge concluded that a daughter is also responsible for maintaining her mother or father even when they do not seem to have any obvious means of livelihood.

The Joint Committee of the Parliament used the term "children" in this context instead of the term "sons" in its report. This is evidence that the legislature did not want to differentiate between a son and a daughter in any way. The cumulative impact of all of these brought the Judge to conclude that in accordance with Section 125, a daughter likewise has the obligation to maintain her parents if they do not seem to have any obvious means of sustaining themselves financially.

In another famous case of Vijaya Manohar Arbat V. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai[14], it was said that Section 125 of the C.r.P.C. allows married daughter to support her parents. A father or mother without means may seek support under section 125(1)(d). Section 2(y) of the Code states that terms and phrases used in the Code are to be interpreted as established by the Penal Code, 1860.

Therefore, the pronoun "he" and its derivatives in section 125 would encompass both men and women. Section 125(1)(d) does not exclude married daughters. Thus, excluding a well-off married daughter with an independent income from this social responsibility is unfair. This would be contrary to the spirit of the law and will violate justice, equity, good conscience, and equality between the genders.

Therefore, if a daughter, whether married or not, has the financial means to maintain her parents, she will be held responsible under Section 125 of the Code, provided that her parents are unable to maintain themselves. This demonstrates that the provision is not just applicable to men but it covers women as well. Thus, it is gender-neutral in nature.

FATHER TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE TO HIS 'MAJOR' SON
A son or daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate, who is mentally or physically unhealthy may ask for maintenance from their father even after they have reached the age of majority under the provisions of Sec. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the court has issued some judgments in which it has decided to award support to an adult son in cases where the circumstances were exceptional.

If a son achieves the age of majority, that is eighteen, the law recognises that he is in a position to earn. However, this fact will need to be taken into account if a mother is provided maintenance and the son is still reliant on his mother for either his schooling or livelihood.

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS
Recently, in the famous judgement of Urvashi Aggarwal v. Inderpaul Aggarwal (2021)[15], the High Court of Delhi held that: "it cannot be said that the obligation of the father to maintain his son cannot come to an end when his son reaches 18 years of age and the entire burden of his educational and other expenses would fall solely on the mother."[16] The judge in this case made the observation that it was impossible for the mother to pay the educational costs of the adult son.

Additionally, the judge took into consideration the fact that the adult son is still in school, which means that he is unable to support himself. As a result, the court decided that the father of the adult son is responsible for paying his son's education expenses until he completes his schooling or starts earning.

The Supreme Court reached a similar decision in the case of Rita Dutta v. Subhendu Datta (2005)[17]. The Supreme Court reached the conclusion that a father has a legal responsibility to contribute financially toward the maintenance of his adult son if that son is still in school and the mother's income cannot support all five of them. In this specific case, the mother of four children, one of whom was an adult son, was unable to support all five of them with the income she was earning.

Additionally, the adult son was unable to support himself because he was still studying. As a result, the court ordered the father who was responsible for the maintenance of the adult son to continue doing so until the son had completed his education.[18]

Despite the fact that the son has reached the age of majority, a son who has highly educated and financially secure parents is eligible to receive maintenance from either of his parents for educational purposes. In a similar case of Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat vs. Ajayveer Chapotkat[19], the issue of whether or not a son who has reached the age of majority may file a maintenance claim against his father came up for discussion in front of the court.

The suit of the Petitioner (Son) was rejected on the grounds that it was likely to be dismissed in view of S-20(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. According to this provision, once the son has reached the age of majority, no maintenance can be claimed from either parents. The court made the observation that a ward who has parents who are both educated and successful has the right to continue his education in order to improve his future.

Even if the parents have gone through a divorce, the child cannot be prevented from continuing his education in order to improve his chances of earning a better income and leading a decent life. In these types of situations, the son would be eligible for maintenance while he is pursuing his studies or until he reaches the age of 25 years, whichever is earlier. Even when the son reaches the age of eighteen, he will not be considered of an age where he can become financially independent and make his own income to support himself.

It was decided in this case, based on the facts presented, that a son who has reached the age of majority and whose parents have a high level of education and are financially secure can make a claim for educational expenses against either of his parents, despite the fact that the son has reached the age of majority. This will not be maintenance in the technical sense, as considered under S-125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor will it be maintenance as envisioned by the Hindu Marriage Act.

In a case of T. Vimala vs. Ramakrishnan (2016)[20], which was heard by the High Court of Madras in 2016, the court ruled in favour of the adult son who was seeking maintenance from his father. The judge in this case stated that "as education is an important part of a child's life and no father is expected to bring up his child as a criminal or a disorderly person, therefore they ought to maintain their son's expenses."[21] This was the reasoning that the judge gave for ordering the father to pay for his son's education. This means that the son may ask for maintenance from his father even after he turns 18 so that he can complete his education.

Another case in hand is the case of Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Agarwal (1970). According to the judgment of the Supreme Court, the term "child" in Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code (1898) does not refer only to a son or daughter who is under the age of 18, and the phrase "unable to maintain itself" indicates the underlying restriction. It makes no difference whether the son is a minor or an adult; in the event that he was incapable to maintain himself, his father was obligated to support him. Regardless of whether or not the son has reached the age of majority, this responsibility remains in place.

The precedent-setting decision that the High Court of Mumbai made in 1988 in the case of Gitanjali Gajanan Tendulkar v. Gajanan Dinkar Tendulkar[22] was relied on in every cases that were described above. In this particular instance, the court ordered the father of a boy who was of age of majority to pay maintenance to his son since the son was living with his mother and the mother's income was not sufficient to cover all of their expenses. The court ruled, "if the son reaches the age of eighteen, it doesn't mean that as from that age he has to starve."[23] According to the judgement of the court, if an adult son cannot support himself, it is the father's duty to maintain him and the father cannot avoid this responsibility on the basis that the son is now a major.

It is widely known that a major son may claim maintenance from his father on reasons other than physical and mental illnesses, as shown by the many rulings handed down by several courts in India in favour of the major son demanding maintenance from his father. It has been established that a father's duty to provide for his son does not end when the boy reaches the age of majority.

MAINTENANCE IN LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS
A live-in relationship may be characterised in basic words as a relationship that is similar to that of marriage and in which both parties have individual liberty while living in a shared home with one another even if they are not married. It requires constant cohabitation between the partners, but neither party is responsible for the other's well-being or has any duties to the other. Because there is no legal obligation holding them together, each one of the partners is free to end the relationship whenever they feel the need to do so and at their own discretion.

Since the term "live-in relationship" is not defined anywhere in the law, there is no way to determine with any certainty how these relationships are treated by the courts. The law in India does not impose any rights or responsibilities on the individuals who are involved in a live-in relationship. It has been broadly stated by the court that any man and woman who have cohabited for an extended period of time would be believed to be lawfully married under the law until it can be shown otherwise.

The right to maintenance in a live-in relationship is something that is determined by the court after taking into account the Domestic Violence Act of 2005[24] as well as the specific circumstances of each individual case. However, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 ensures the well-being of a victimised live-in partner, even though society as a whole is still reluctant to accept such relationships, thereby awarding the right to alimony.

The Malimath Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System, 2003[25] gave a number of suggestions in Part IV, Chap.16 under the Head "Offences against Women". One of these recommendations was that "the definition of the word "wife" in Section 125 should be amended so as to include a woman who was living with the man as his wife for a reasonably long period, during the subsistence of the first marriage."[26]

As a result, a modification was made, and the word "wife" was expanded to include women who had been in a live-in relationship in the past but whose partner had left them at his own will. In essence, it says that if a woman has been in a live-in relationship with the same person for an adequate amount of time, she ought to have the same lawful rights as those of a spouse and she may claim maintenance in accordance with Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

It was the first time through the case of Badri Prasad vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978)[27] that the Supreme Court gave importance to a live-in relationship and regarded it as a lawful marriage. In this specific case, the court acknowledged a couple who had been living together for the past fifty years as being in a live- in relationship.

Justice Krishna Iyer came to the conclusion that there is a significant assumption in favour of marriage in situations where the spouses have lived together for an extended time as husband and wife. Even while the assumption may be disproved, the person who is trying to deprive the connection of its legal basis has the burden of proving the same. The rule of law favours legitimacy and looks down on bastardy as a moral failing.

The D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal[28] judgement of 2010 established certain requirements that must be met before a live-in relationship may be deemed valid.

These are:

1. the couple must act like they are married to the society and
2. they must be of legitimate age to marry or eligible to get married, even if they are not married.

According to the decision, the couple should have freely cohabited together for a long time while also portraying themselves to the outside world as being married.

As per the decision of the court, the Domestic Violence Act does not apply to every kind of relationship since not all of them are equivalent to a marriage. It was also made clear that a partnership that consisted of a man keeping a woman as a servant, providing for her financially, and using her for sensual purposes would not be regarded as marriage.

Therefore, in order to obtain this benefit, the Court's requirements must be adhered to, and their satisfaction has to be shown via the presentation of evidence. In this case, the court based its decision on the idea of "palimony," which was a common practise in the legal system of the United States for the awarding of maintenance in live-in partnerships. The case of Marvin vs. Marvin is the case from where the idea of "palimony" was first conceived.

The most recent decision by the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma[29] highlighted four different categories in which the notion of live-in relationships may be explored. These are:

1. Relationship between a married man and an adult, single woman knowingly entering into a live-in relationship.
2. A single adult man and a married woman entering into a live-in relationship knowingly.
3. An unmarried adult woman and a married man unknowingly entering into a live-in relationship.
4. Same-sex partners, that is, gays or lesbians entering into a live-in relationship.

The Court decided that a live-in relationship falls within the definition of "relationship in the nature of marriage" under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005[30], and established specific rules to develop an understanding of such relationships. In addition to this, a comprehensive evaluation of the whole relationship should be carried out. To put this another way, all aspects of the interpersonal interaction, as well as the individual elements, need to be taken into consideration.

The Supreme Court has developed and established the lawful status of live-in relationships in India through many judgements. However, there is no distinct legislature that lends legitimacy to the notion of live-in relationships and sets out the conditions for these types of relationships. Despite widespread social disapproval, live-in relationship is not against the law.

According to the Supreme Court, cohabitation is a fundamental right, and as such, it cannot be made illegal. If it can be shown that the couple has a "relationship in the nature of marriage," then the court will define the couple's status under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005 and take steps to better the lives of any women and children born as a consequence of the relationship.

In the case of S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Anr[31], the court held that the co-habitation of a couple would give rise to the presumption of a legitimate marriage, and that if a live-in relationship doesn't work out, the male is compelled to provide maintenance to the woman.

CONCLUSION
Even though the word "daughter" is not specifically mentioned in Section 125 Code, it still holds a daughter, whether married or not, liable to provide maintenance to her mother or father if she has adequate means to do so provided that her parents are unable to maintain themselves. Thus, section 125 applies to both sons and daughters and is a gender-neutral provision.

It is widely known that a major son may claim maintenance from his father on reasons other than physical and mental illnesses, as shown by the many rulings handed down by several courts in India in favour of the major son demanding maintenance from his father. It has been established that a father's duty to provide for his son does not end when the boy reaches the age of majority. This has been proved by various landmark judgements mentioned by the author above.

The Supreme Court of India has issued a number of rulings clarifying and establishing the legal status of live-in partners in India. Yet there is no clear law that establishes the parameters for live-in relationships and provides validity to the idea of them. Although it is often disapproved, living together as a couple is not illegal in any way. According to the decision of the Supreme Court, "Living together is a right to life".

For women and children born in these relationships, the court has defined their status under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005, but only if it can be shown that the relationship is a "relationship in the nature of marriage."

The Supreme Court's approach to live-in relationships is a prime example of the court's progressive stance on this issue. All of these decisions are proof that the Supreme Court is adjusting to the rapid pace of societal change. However, there is a pressing need for a clear legal framework to govern the rights and responsibilities of partners in live-in relationships.

End-Notes:

1. Nanak Chand vs. Chandra Kishore Agarwal [1969] 3 SCC 802
2. Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi [1975] 2 SCC 386
3. Virendra Chanmuniya vs. Chanmuniya Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr [2011] 1 SCC 141
4. Gitanjali Gajanan Tendulkar vs Gajanan Dinkar Tendulkar [1989] SCC OnLine Bom 280
5. Pallavi, 'Maintenance in Criminal Law with Specific Reference to Women in Live-in-Relationship'
6. Chinubhai Bhikhabhai Solanki vs State of Gujarat [2016] SCC OnLine Guj 1185
7. ibid
8. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, s 4
9. Devika Sharma, 'Maintenance � Children and Parents' [2019] SCC
10. Vasant v. Govindrao Upasrao Naik [2016] SCC OnLine Bom 1077
11. ibid
12. Areefa Beevi v. Dr. K.M. Sahib [1983] Cri LJ 412
13. Supra note 13
14. Vijaya Manohar Arbat v Kashirao Rajaram Sawai [1987] 2 SCC 278
15. Urvashi Aggarwal v. Inderpaul Aggarwal [2021] SCC OnLine Del 7495
16. ibid
17. Rita Dutta v. Subhendu Datta [2005] 6 SCC 619
18. ibid
19. Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat v. Ajayveer Chapotkat [2014] SCC OnLine Bom 465
20. T. Vimala v. Ramakrishnan [2016] SCC OnLine Mad 12324
21. ibid
22. Supra note 4
23. ibid
24. Domestic Violence Act 2005
25. Malimath Committee, Reforms of the Criminal Justice System [2003]
26. ibid
27. Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation [1978] 9 SCC 299
28. D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal [2010] 10 SCC 469
29. Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma [2015] 15 SCC 755
30. Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act 2005, s 2(f)
31. S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Anr [2010] 5 SCC 600

Also Read:

• Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.c
• Analysis On Section 125 Of Crpc
• Right Of Muslim Women To Claim Maintenance (Under Section 125 Of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973)