• Today: October 31, 2025

T.P.S.H. Selva Saroja v. T.P.S.H. Sasinathan

31 October, 2025
201
Section 125 CrPC & Adult Daughter’s Maintenance — Madras High Court | Selva Saroja v. Sasinathan (1989)

T.P.S.H. Selva Saroja v. T.P.S.H. Sasinathan (1989) Cri LJ 2032

Easy English explainer for students and young lawyers.

Madras High Court Year: 1989 Citation: (1989) Cri LJ 2032 Area: Criminal Procedure — Maintenance Author: Gulzar Hashmi Reading time: ~6 min India
Court-themed illustration for Selva Saroja v. Sasinathan case explainer
```
CASE_TITLE: T.P.S.H. Selva Saroja v. T.P.S.H. Sasinathan PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 125 CrPC, maintenance of adult daughter, Madras High Court SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: 1989 Cri LJ 2032, injury meaning, unmarried daughter, inability to maintain PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-10-31 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India Slug: t-p-s-h-selva-saroja-v-t-p-s-h-sasinathana
```

Quick Summary

An adult, unmarried daughter asked for maintenance from her mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Madras High Court held that Section 125(1)(c) allows maintenance to a major child only when the child cannot maintain herself because of a physical or mental abnormality or an injury. Since the daughter did not have such a condition, she could not claim maintenance from her mother. The petition was allowed and the Magistrate’s proceedings were quashed.

Judgment illustration for Selva Saroja v. Sasinathan

Issues

  • Is a mother legally responsible to maintain her adult, unmarried daughter who has no disability?

Rules

Section 125(1)(c) CrPC: A child who has attained majority (and is not a married daughter) may claim maintenance only if the child is unable to maintain herself or himself because of any physical or mental abnormality or injury.

Facts (Timeline)

The mother (petitioner) and daughter (respondent, ~31 years) fell out and lived separately for almost two years.

Father had died earlier; mother took charge as Managing Director of M/s. T.P. Sokkalal Beedi Factory Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli.

Dispute grew when the mother’s close association with a chartered accountant, Thomas Fernando, upset the daughter, who objected to his interference.

The daughter alleged ill-treatment and being driven out; she claimed she had no income and sought maintenance from her mother before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

The mother argued that under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC, an adult, unmarried daughter can claim maintenance only if she cannot maintain herself due to a disability or injury.

Timeline graphic for case facts

Arguments

Appellant / Petitioner (Mother)

  • Section 125(1)(c) restricts maintenance for major children to cases of disability or injury.
  • The daughter is an adult without any physical or mental abnormality.
  • Therefore, no legal duty arises to pay maintenance.

Respondent (Daughter)

  • She had no independent income and was living separately.
  • Alleged interference by Thomas Fernando led to ill-treatment.
  • Sought support for basic livelihood and clothing.

Judgment

The Madras High Court allowed the petition. It held that the term “injury” in Section 125(1)(c) must be read with the phrase “inability to maintain” and does not need the Penal Code definition. As the daughter was a major without any qualifying disability or injury, she could not invoke Section 125 to claim maintenance from her mother. The proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, were quashed. Petition allowed

Gavel and scales symbolising the court's decision

Ratio

For a major child (not a married daughter), maintenance under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC is available only when the child is unable to maintain herself due to a physical or mental abnormality or injury. Mere financial need, without such a condition, does not trigger the statutory duty.

Why It Matters

  • Clarifies the narrow scope of maintenance for major children under Section 125 CrPC.
  • Guides Magistrates on interpreting “injury” contextually, not via IPC definition.
  • Helps families understand when legal maintenance rights do and do not apply.

Key Takeaways

  • Adult, unmarried daughters need a qualifying disability or injury to claim maintenance under Section 125(1)(c).
  • “Injury” is read with “inability to maintain,” not by the IPC definition.
  • Absence of income alone is insufficient for a claim against a parent under this clause.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Major? Mind or Malady.”

  1. Major: The child is above 18.
  2. Mind: Mental abnormality qualifies.
  3. Malady: Physical injury or abnormality qualifies.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Can an adult, unmarried daughter without disability claim maintenance from her mother under Section 125 CrPC?

Rule

Section 125(1)(c) allows such maintenance only if the major child is unable to maintain herself because of physical or mental abnormality or injury.

Application

The daughter was a major and had no shown abnormality or injury. Therefore, the statutory condition was not met.

Conclusion

No maintenance under Section 125(1)(c). Petition allowed; Magistrate’s proceedings quashed.

Glossary

Section 125 CrPC
A summary remedy to prevent destitution by providing maintenance to certain relatives.
Abnormality or Injury
A qualifying condition that makes a major child unable to maintain herself or himself.
Quash
To set aside or annul legal proceedings.

FAQs

Only if she is unable to maintain herself because of a physical or mental abnormality or injury, and she is not married.

No. Financial hardship by itself is not enough for a major child under Section 125(1)(c). A qualifying disability or injury is required.

The Court read “injury” contextually with “inability to maintain,” without importing the IPC definition.

The petition was allowed and the Magistrate’s proceedings were quashed.
Reviewed by The Law Easy
Section 125 CrPC Maintenance Criminal Procedure Madras HC
```

Comment

Nothing for now