M.AREEFA BEEVI vs. Dr. K.M.

SAHIB : An Analysis

PROJECT ON

M.AREEFA BEEVI vs. Dr. K.M. SAHIB : An Analysis

Submitted To: Mr. XXXX

(Faculty of Criminal Procedure Code)

Submitted By:

SEMESTER VII

DATE OF SUBMISSION - 21/08/2017

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR, C.G.
 M.AREEFA BEEVI vs. Dr. K.M. SAHIB : An Analysis

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I feel highly elated to work on the topic “M.Areefa Beevi Vs. Dr. K.M. Sahib : An

Analysis”.

The practical realization of this project has obligated the assistance of many persons. I

express my deepest regard and gratitude for Mr. XXXX, Faculty of Criminal Procedure

Code. His consistent supervision, constant inspiration and invaluable guidance has been of

immense help in understanding and carrying out the nuances of the project report.

I would like to thank my family and friends without whose support and encouragement,

this project would not have been a reality.

I take this opportunity to also thank the University and the Vice Chancellor for providing

extensive database resources in the Library and through Internet. I would be grateful to

receive comments and suggestions to further improve this project report.

Semester VII
 M.AREEFA BEEVI vs. Dr. K.M. SAHIB : An Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................................................3
CERTIFICATE OF DECLARATION...................................................................................................................4
OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................................................5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................5
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................6
CHAPTER 1...................................................................................................................................................7
M. Areefa Beevi vs. Dr. K.M. Sahib.........................................................................................................7

CHAPTER 2...................................................................................................................................................8
Analysis of the judgment........................................................................................................................8

Judgment of Supreme Court...................................................................................................................9

CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................................11
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................................12
STATUTES AND ACTS.............................................................................................................................12

BOOKS..................................................................................................................................................12

DICTIONARY:.........................................................................................................................................12

WEBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................................12
 M.AREEFA BEEVI vs. Dr. K.M. SAHIB : An Analysis

CERTIFICATE OF DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the project work entitled “M.Areefa Beevi Vs. Dr. K.M. Sahib : An
Analysis” submitted to HNLU, Raipur, is record of an original work done by me under the
able guidance of Mr. XXX, Faculty Member, HNLU, Raipur.

Semester – VII
 M.AREEFA BEEVI vs. Dr. K.M. SAHIB : An Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of this project are:

 To understand the concept of maintainence.

 To analyze the judgment of M.Areefa Beevi Vs. Dr. K.M. Sahib.

 To understand whether daughter is liable to maintain her parents under 125. .

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research methodology used in this project is doctrinal and descriptive. It is largely
based on electronic and secondary sources of data. Data has been collected from various
books, articles, papers and web sources.
 M.AREEFA BEEVI vs. Dr. K.M. SAHIB : An Analysis

“The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the basis of judging the social,
economic and political policies of a nation” -Jeremy Bentham

INTRODUCTION

The basic social unit wherein we could observe the pre requisites of a welfare society is
family. Family is described as a ‘natural ethical community’. 1 Marriage, as an institution is
necessary for the procreation of human race. Marriage as such gives the married partners,
a status and imposes mutual obligations and rights. The prime obligation that arises out of
marriage is maintenance. Marriage is an obligation arising out of marriage because when
one took possession of a woman, other men followed his example. He obliged the woman
to receive only his caresses and taking in return the obligation upon himself to regard her
as his wife and to protect and bring up her children as his own. Thus arose marriage and
the obligation to care for each other. This was a natural obligation. It got rooted as moral
obligation in a social community. The modern welfare society imposes them as statutory
obligation. Maintenance has been a concern of not only weaker sections but of the society
as well. For weaker sections it is a problem in the sense their very sun/ival rest on the
provision made available as maintenance. Any disruption at the level of marriage tends to
affect the social interest and its development. Towards safeguarding the interest of parties
at marriage and other members of the family, maintenance is recognized. Maintenance is
not merely a legal right. It is part and parcel of basic human right. Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
which intends to prevent starvation protects indirectly the basic human right of an
individual.
Section 125(1)(d) of the CrPC is a provision in Indian Law whereby a magistrate can order
children to make a payment of monthly allowance as maintenance to their parents. The
project discusses the issue which has now been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India that the parents can also claim maintenance from their daughter since the code

1
Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy, August Bebel - Woman in the past, present & future, Deep &
Deep Publications, New Delhi, 1996, p.XXVI.
 M.AREEFA BEEVI vs. Dr. K.M. SAHIB : An Analysis

mentions the word “his” which has to be interpreted in the light of Indian Penal Code and
hence the word “his” will mean to be her also.

CHAPTER 1

M. Areefa Beevi vs. Dr. K.M. Sahib2

Factual Matrix :-
1. The petitioner herein is the daughter of the respondent. The respondent filed a petition
under Section 125 of the Criminal P. C. for maintenance from the petitioner, alleging that
he is now unable to maintain himself and the petitioner is duty bound to maintain him.
The petitioner who is a graduate in Science as well as in Medicine and Surgery is now
working in a Mission Hospital. The claim of the respondent was for maintenance at Rs.
300/- per month.
2. The learned Magistrate held that the petitioner is bound to maintain her father and she
was directed to pay Rs. 100/- per month to the respondent. In revision before the Sessions
Court filed by the respondent complaining about the meagreness of the amount granted,
the present petitioner contended that the father is not entitled to claim maintenance at all
and therefore the application for maintenance itself should be dismissed. The respondent
had been objected to the consideration of this question of the maintainability of the
petition on the ground that the daughter present petitioner, had not filed a revision against
the order fixing the liability at Rs. 100/- per month.

Issue raised :-
Whether in Section 125 of CrPC daughter could be liable to maintain her father ?

Judgment of the Kerala High Court:-

The learned judge referred to the passage in the report of Joint committee of Parliament
which states that:

2
MANU/KE/0151/1982.
 M.AREEFA BEEVI vs. Dr. K.M. SAHIB : An Analysis

The committee3 considers that the right of the parents not possessed of sufficient means,
to be maintained by their son should be recognised by making a provision that where the
father or mother is unable to maintain himself or herself an order for payment of
maintenance may be directed to a son who is possessed of sufficient means. “If there are
two or more children the parents may seek the remedy against any one or more of them.”
Here instead of using the expression 'sons' the expression used is 'children'. This is
indicative of the intention of the legislature that no distinction was intended to be made
between son and daughter. The cumulative effect of all these leads me to the conclusion
that under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. a daughter also has the liability to maintain her
parents who have no ostensible means of livelihood. I therefore hold that there is no
illegality or irregularity in the order fixing the liability on the respondent.

CHAPTER 2

Analysis of the judgment

Section 125(1)(d) of the Code reads as under:

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-
(d) 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 wife or such child, father
or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such
Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time
to time direct.

Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. 1973, it has not been specifically provided that a daughter is
also liable to maintain her parents who are unable to maintain themselves. Under the
Hindu Marriage Act a specific provision has been made under which a husband having no
Independent income sufficient for his support, has a right to claim maintenance pendente

3
The report of the Joint Committee of the Parliament, reported in 1978 Crl. LJ 600.
 M.AREEFA BEEVI vs. Dr. K.M. SAHIB : An Analysis

lite and expenses of proceedings from his wife but no such provision has been made under
Section 125 of the Code.

According to Section 2(y)4 of the Code "words and expressions used herein and not
defined but defined in the Penal Code (45 of 1860) have the meanings respectively
assigned to them in that Code," Under Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code, the pronoun
"he" and its derivatives are used of any person whether male or female and under Section
11 of the Indian penal Code, the word "person" includes any company or association or
body of persons whether incorporated or not. The words used in Section 125 of the Code
are "any person" and "such person.' The meanings of the word "he." therefore, cannot be
applied to the words "any person" and "such person" as used in Section 125 of the Code.
Moreover, the scheme of Section 125 of the Code, for providing maintenance to the father
and mother seems to be that of a son, who is possessed of sufficient means and he can be
directed to maintain his father and mother, if they are unable to maintain themselves."

Therefore the expression "his father or mother" occurring in Section 125 of the Cr. P.C.
must be taken to have the meaning "her father or mother”. Therefore, it can be rightly said
that the decision of the lower court in providing maintenance to father from the daughter is
good in the eyes of law.

Judgment of Supreme Court

The same judgment was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Vijaya
Manohar Arbat Vs. Kashi Rao Rajaram Sawai & Anr. 5 which affirmed the decision of the
Kerala High Court and gave its decision as under:-

1. An application under section 125(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by a

father claiming maintenance from his married daughter is perfectly maintainable. 
2. The object of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code is to provide a summary remedy to
save dependents from destitution and vagrancy and thus to serve a social purpose. There

4
Section 2(y), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
5
AIR 1987 SC 1100.
 M.AREEFA BEEVI vs. Dr. K.M. SAHIB : An Analysis

can be no doubt that it is the moral obligation of a son or a daughter to maintain his or her
parents. It is not desirable that even though a son or a daughter has sufficient means, his
or her parents would starve.
3. It is true that clause (d) has used the expression 'his father or mother' but, the use of the
word 'his' does not exclude the parents claiming maintenance from their daughter. Section
2(y) Criminal Procedure Code provides that words and expressions used herein and not
defined but defined in the Indian Penal Code have the meanings respectively assigned to
them in that Code. Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that the pronoun 'he' and
its derivatives are used for any person whether male or female. Thus, in view of section 8
Indian Penal Code read with section 2(y) Criminal Procedure Code, the pronoun 'his' in
clause (d) of section 125(1) Criminal Procedure Code also indicates a female. Section
13(1) of the General Clauses Act lays down that in all Central Acts and Regulations,
unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words importing the
masculine gender shall be taken to include females.
4. Therefore, the pronoun 'his' as used in clause (d) of section 125(1) Criminal Procedure
Code includes both a male and a female. In other words, the parents will be entitled to
claim maintenance against their daughter provided, however, the other conditions as
mentioned in the section are fulfilled. Before ordering maintenance in favour of a father
or a mother against their married daughter, the court must be satisfied that the daughter
has sufficient means of her own independently of the means or income of her husband,
and that the father or the mother, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or
herself.
5. A daughter after her marriage does not cease to be a daughter of the father or mother. If it
is not so, parents having no son but only daughters and unable to maintain themselves,
would go destitute, if the daughters even though they have sufficient means refuse to
maintain their parents.

CONCLUSION
 M.AREEFA BEEVI vs. Dr. K.M. SAHIB : An Analysis

A daughter's liability towards her parent is another issue that remained unsettled for some
time until the intervention of the Supreme Court to clarify the position. The use of the
word ‘his’ in relation to Section 125(d) tends to give an impression that only sons have an
obligation to maintain their father or mother and such an obligation is not there with the
daughter. A normal interpretation will certainly exclude daughters from paying
maintenance towards their father or mother. For precision the legislation has omitted the
word ‘her’ which if used might not have given rise to this conflict. Moreover, Section 2(1)
of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 8 of the l.P.C. will certainly include daughter within the
phrase ‘his’ under Section 125.
It is unfortunate that some of the courts in India have given the word ‘his’ its natural
interpretation and denied the claim of maintenance by parents.6 For the first time, the
Kerala High Court recognized such a right and imposed the duty on daughters to maintain
her parents.7 The Court observed that it was as much the duty of a daughter to maintain her
parents as it is the duty of a son. Then came the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Mrs.
Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kasirao Rajaram Sawai and another8 which held that the word
‘his’ includes both male and female children. This appears to be a reasonable
interpretation of the provision. The Court observed that maintenance of parents being a
moral duty there was no reason why a daughter should be excluded.
The social economic conditions of the society have changed a vast. Girls now have the
right to own property on their own and the right to inherit property. A large number of
them now take up jobs and are financially sound. They come to occupy responsible
position at varying levels. Politically too they have now a say in the governance of the
country. ln short the condition and status of women is not the same as it prevailed decades
ago. Equality exists now in reality. Moral obligations rest not on the basis of sex. Legal
recognition of this moral right under the provision of Section 125 will not go away from
its avowed objective. Moreover in the society which progressively controls birth at family
level and where people too show inclination towards limiting the number of issues it
seems more essential. For parents with mere daughters this will remain as an indispensable
right too.

6
Kumari v. Yesodha Devi, 1978 Cr.L.J. 600 (P&H).
7
Areefa Beevi v. Dr.K.M. Sahib, 1983 Cr.L.J. 412 (Ker).
8
1987 Cr.L.J. p.977.
 M.AREEFA BEEVI vs. Dr. K.M. SAHIB : An Analysis

REFERENCES

STATUTES AND ACTS

 Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973.

BOOKS

 D.D. Basu , The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 5th Edn., Lexis Nexis (2014).

 th
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Code of Criminal Procedure, (Justice G.P. Singh ed., 25 edition
reprint Wadhwa and Company Nagpur.

 Roscoe Pound, Code of Criminal Procedure, (1959) Vol IV.

 S.N. Misra, The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 19th Edn., Central Law Publications
(2014).

DICTIONARY:
th
1. Strouds Judicial Dictionary, 7 Ed., Vol. III, (2008) Sweet & Maxwell Publications,
London.

WEBLIOGRAPHY
 www.thefreedictionary.com

 www.jstor.org

 www.indialawjournal.com

 www.manupatra.com