Bombay High Court: Allowing a petition, a division bench comprising of
Sadhna S. Jadhav, J held that a son is entitled to maintenance from his
father even after attaining the age of maturity. In the present case,
the petitioner's parents were divorced and permanent custody of the
child was given to the mother. The petitioner had filed the application
on the grounds that it is the obligation of the father to maintain him
as he is studying and fully dependent upon his mother. The
Counsel for the petitioner had argued that divorce between the parents
should not disentitle the child from pursuing his further studies and
making himself capable to earn a decent living. The Counsel placed
reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kirti
Malhotra vs. M.K. Malhotra 1995 Supp (3) SCC 522 to demonstrate
that the petitioner would be entitled to maintenance during the period
he is seeking education. The father opposed the application on the
ground that as the son had attained majority age he is no more liable to
pay maintenance to him. The Court after going through the judgments and
arguments placed before it ruled that major son of the well-educated
and economically sound parents can claim educational expenses from his
father or mother irrespective of the fact that he has attained majority
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2117 OF 2012
[Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat vs. Ajayveer Chapotkat, Civil Writ Petition No. 2117 of 2012, decided on April 8, 2014]
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J
DATE : 8th April, 2014
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned
Counsel for the respondent.
2
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the
parties.
3
The petitioner herein is the son of the respondent No. 1. The
Petition herein takes exception to the order dated 30 th August, 2011
passed by the Family Court. The Petitioner has instituted the Petition
to direct respondent father to pay maintenance even after he has
attained age of majority. During the pendency of the main Petition,
the Constituted Attorney of the respondent father had made an
application for framing preliminary issue regarding maintainability of
Petition, thereby seeking rejection of the Petition under Order 7 Rule
11(d) of Civil Procedure Code. The named Petition is filed under
Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The
Petitioner herein had attained majority on 26 th October, 2008 and the
Petition was filed on 19th November 2008. The Petitioner had
challenged the application seeking framing of preliminary issue. The
Petitioner had contended that it is the obligation of the father to
maintain his son as he is studying and fully dependent upon his
mother. Learned Family Court had observed that the Petitioner has
attained majority and is not entitled to claim maintenance under
Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. It was
observed by the learned Family Court that the advocate representing
the Petitioner as well as respondent had admitted that the Petition has
been filed by the Petitioner after attaining age of majority and as per
subclause 2 of the Section 20 of the Act, the Child is not entitled to
claim maintenance from either of the parents.
The Petitioner submits that in fact, his mother had filed an
application before the Family Court bearing Petition No. A438/1993
praying therein that the marriage between the applicant and the
present respondent be dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section
13(1)(ia) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that the
applicant therein shall be awarded the custody and guardianship of the
minor child Jayvardhan Sinh and that the custody of the minor son
shall vest in her permanently. The prayer was granted by the Family
Court and the decree was drawn on 24th March, 2000. At that stage,
the respondent herein was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/ p.m. to the
mother of the Petitioner towards her maintenance and the respondent
was further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/ p.m. to the present Petitioner
towards maintenance. Thereafter, the mother of the Petitioner had
sought modification of the order by filing Miscellanea Application No.
118 of 2003. She had demonstrated before the Court the contingent
expenditures towards maintenance of her son and had prayed that the
respondent herein be ordered and directed to pay a sum of Rs.
15,000/ p. m. towards maintenance of the minor son and further that
the respondent be ordered and directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7 Lakhs for
the membership of C.C.I. It appears from record that the respondent
On 14th November, 2008 the respondent herein filed Interim
herein was looking after the needs of the son.
Application No. 346 of 2008 in M.A. No. 118 of 2003 seeking
modification of the order of maintenance. The applicant i.e. the
present respondent had specifically stated that the respondent has paid
Rs. 17,91,000/ and was in arrears of Rs. 1,66,000/ as on
16/10/2008. The applicant had filed an undertaking that he would
pay the arrears amount. It was specifically contended that on
26/10/2008 the child Jay i.e. present Petitioner has completed 18
years of age and has become a major and hence, would not be entitled
for any maintenance. He had prayed for modification of the order
dated 24th June, 2004 and had further prayed that the order of
maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/ to the child Jay be set aside.
The mother of the Petitioner had filed a reply to the said application
contending therein that although the child has attained majority, he is
studying in first year junior college at Jai Hind College, Mumbai. He
had attained majority on 26th October, 2008. That he is still a student
and is not independent and capable of looking after himself and
therefore, the order should not be modified. The Marriage Counsellor
had called upon to file a report. She had reported that the total
amount paid by the present respondent was Rs. 16,71,000/. Amount
of Rs. 14,87,000/ was withdrawn from the court. That the respondent
had paid Rs. 1,84,000/ and Rs. 40,000/ by cheque and total amount
paid was Rs. 17,11,000/. The present Petitioner filed Petition No.
176/2008 before the Family Court which is an application under
Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1955 praying
therein that the Petitioner be awarded maintenance even after his
attaining of majority on 26/10/2008.
The respondent had raised a preliminary objection in respect of
maintainability of the Petition under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil
Procedure, Code and therefore had requested the Court to frame the
issue of maintainability of the Petition, as per the provisions of order
14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The preliminary objection was filed
by the Constituted Attorney of the respondent on behalf of the
respondent. In the mean while, Civil Appeal No. 8689 of 2011 has
been filed by the mother of the present Petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex
Court has stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by the
High Court and had directed that the respondent shall pay to the
Petitioner Rs. 10,000/ p.m. by way of permanent alimony with effect
from the date of the Family Court order and this would be in addition
to the amount awarded for the child. It is pertinent to note that before
filing the application seeking leave to appeal the present Petitioner had
attained majority. However, the same was not demonstrated before
the Hon'ble Apex Court and in all probabilities therefore, the Hon'ble
Apex Court had extended the relief in favour of the child i.e. the
present Petitioner. The respondent herein had filed affidavit in reply
before the Hon'ble Apex Court stating therein that in fact, there has
been suppression of facts on behalf of the appellant. It was specifically
contended in paragraph26 of the affidavit that the present Petitioner
had attained majority on 26th October, 2008 and that he has filed an
application under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act before Family Court. It was further demonstrated that the issue of
maintenance payable to the son was not an issue either in the High
Court or in the Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted
interim relief for granting maintenance to the son. It was further
contended that it has foreclosed defence available to the respondent in
the application filed by the son before the Family Court under Section
20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. On 12 th August, 2013
Civil Appeal No. 8689 of 2011 was called out for hearing before the
Hon'ble Apex Court and the Apex Court had granted four weeks' time
In the case of Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v/s. District Judge,
to both the parties to file their respective statement of the case.
Dehradun and ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 3397, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed that under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
Act, 1956 it is the obligation of a person to maintain his unmarried
daughter, if she is unable to maintain herself.
8
It is submitted by the respondent that the Hon'ble Apex Court
was considering the case of an unmarried daughter and the same
cannot be applied to the case of a son. In fact, in the present case, the
respondent has demonstrated before the Apex Court that the mother of
the present Petitioner happens to be a practicing advocate and she has
suppressed the facts before the Court.
Section 20 of the said Act contemplates that a legitimate and
illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his father or mother so
long as the child is minor. Section 21(iv) of the said Act defines
“dependents” “as his or her son or the son of his predeceased son or
the son of a predeceased son of his predeceased son, so long as he is a
minor : provided and to the extent that he is unable to obtain
maintenance, in the case of a grandson from his father's or mother's
estate, and in the case of a greatgrandson, from the estate of his father
or mother or father's father or father's mother.”
In view of this provision, it can be clearly said that the Statute
does not contemplate grant of maintenance to son who has attained
majority.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon
the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rita Dutta and
Anr. v.s. Subhendu Dutta reported in (2005) 6 SCC 619. In the
said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court had directed the father to pay
maintenance to the elder son to the tune of Rs. 3,000/ and Rs. 2,500/
to the younger son. The Counsel placing reliance upon the Judgment
of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited(supra) submits that although the
Statute does not entitle a major son for maintenance, in fact and
circumstances, a son who has attained majority can claim
maintenance. That the Hon’ble Apex Court has also not disturbed
grant of maintenance awarded to the present petitioner.
The learned Counsel further submits that it is the obligation of
the father to maintain his son who is still prosecuting his studies and is
fully dependent and cannot maintain himself. It is true that the ward
of an educated, well placed parent is entitled to prosecute his studies
in order to have better prospects in life. Divorce between the parents
should not disentitle the child from prosecuting his further studies and
making himself capable to earn a decent living for himself. In these
circumstances, the son would be entitled to maintenance so long as he
is prosecuting his education or till he attains the age of 25 years.
13
The Hon'ble Apex Court had carved an exception to the
provisions of Statute in the case of Rita Dutta(supra). In the present
case also it can be said that the Petitioner has made out an exceptional
case. It is demonstrated in the Petition that he has bright career. He
he is studying at Jai Hind college.
14
is prosecuting his education and sports to the best of his capacity and
The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that in fact, the
mother is an advocate and she is also earning and therefore, she
should maintain her son. It is further submitted that the Statute does
not contemplate maintenance to a son who has attained majority. It is
the joint responsibility of the parents to maintain their son as long as
he is studying and just because the parents are divorced and the son
continues to live with his mother, the whole responsibility cannot be
thrown on the frail shoulders of mother.
The learned Counsel for the respondent further submits that the
mother of the present petitioner earns about 10,000/ p.m. as an
advocate and she has suppressed the said fact and therefore, the son
would not be entitled to any maintenance from the father. In the
present day circumstances, Rs. 10,000/ is a meager amount and the
tuition fees are exhorbitant and therefore, it would not be possible for
the mother to pay the tuition fees of her son. On the other hand, the
respondent herein is in fact, an American Citizen and a waste water
analyst working for gain at RCSD1, 4, Route 340, Orangeburg, New
York 10962 U.S.A.
A major son may not be entitled for maintenance under the
Hindu Marriage Act. In the present case, the Petitioner has made out a
specific claim for educational expenses which can be availed by him
after attaining the age of 18 years. The son/claimant would attain
majority as far as age is concerned, however, it would not be the
proper age for becoming economically independent so as to earn his
living. In the given facts of the case, a major son of the welleducated
and economically sound parents can claim educational expenses from
his father or mother irrespective of the fact that he has attained
majority. It is not maintenance in strict sense as contemplated under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or maintenance as
contemplated under Section under Hindu Marriage Act.
17.
Respective Counsel submit that the respondent herein had
preferred an appeal (Family Court Appeal No.147 of 2013)
challenging the judgment and order dated 1.8.2012 passed by
the Judge, Court Room No.3, Family Court, Mumbai, in Petition
No. Civil M.A. 118 of 2003, wherein the maintenance awarded
to the present petitoner was enhanced to Rs.15,000/ from
Rs.5,000/. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench of this
Court (Coram : Smt. V.K.Tahilramani and A.R.Joshi, JJ.). The
said appeal was disposed of by an order dated 11.10.2013. The
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had observed in para 6 as
follows :
In his affidavitinreply, the appellant – father has
“6.
stated about the educational facilities available in U.S. And
particularly in New York where he is residing. He has stated
that the mother should send the child to America to be with
him and he will look after the child and attend to the needs
of the child in America. He has stated in detail in his reply
as to how the child will be benefited if he lives in Manuet in
New York with the appellant. The appellant has not disputed
that there is inflation in India. He has not disputed that the
amounts were spent on medical / orthodontal treatment nor
that the amounts were spent to pay college fees, purchase of
books etc. It is pertinent to note that the appellant – father
ha averred in his reply that he will maintain the child in
America, to give an exposure to various cultures in U.S.
From this, it is seen that he has sufficient funds and sufficient
financial capacity to provide all those facilities in India which
he has promised to give the child in US.”
The Hon'ble Division Bench has further observed that the father
of the present petitioner had been called upon to produce his
incometax assessment. He has not produced the incometax
assessment as according to him, this is “highly official and
personal information which can be construed and used for
illegal and inappropriate purpose”. The respondent herein had
filed salary certificate which showed that his salary was
47,557.74 USD. The Court had observed that the net salary of
the appellant (present respondent) was 47,557.74 USD after
following mandatory taxes and contributions. The Hon'ble
Division Bench has specifically passed an order that the child is
entitled to enhanced maintenance of Rs.15,000/ instead of
Rs.5,000/ per month till the date he attains majority. The said
order was challenged before the Apex Court and the Judgment
of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 11.10.2013 has
been upheld.
18.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed written
submissions and submits that the petitioner is not earning and,
therefore, cannot pay for his educational expenses also. It is
submitted that at present, the petitioner is pursuing a oneyear
course a Masters Degree in Sports Management offered by the
University of Loughborough, U.K. The annual fees to be
incurred on the said course is GBP 13,250/. The petitioner has
obtained loan from his maternal grandfather for payment of the
said fees as he is born in USA and would not be able to obtain
loan from a Nationalized Bank in India. He desires to return the
loan obtained from his grandfather. Hence, this Court is of the
opinion that the present petitioner would be entitled to a
educational expenses of Rs.15,000/ after having attained
majority, but only till he completes his education in Sports
Training. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he
has taken admission for the masters degree in Sports
Management in September, 2013. The duration of the Course is
of one year i.e. till September, 2014. The petitioner shall not
claim any maintenance beyond the period of completion of
education. The educational expenses shall be paid to the
petitioner at the rate of Rs.15,000/ per moth till he completes
the education. The amounts paid pursuant to the order passed
in Family Court Appeal No.147 of 2013 shall be inclusive of the
amount being granted in this petition and the petitioner shall be
entitled to educational expenses of Rs.15,000/ from the date of
19.
his application under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act for a period of one year from the date of this
order.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kirti Malhotra
(Smt) vs. M.K.Malhotra 1995 Supp (3) SCC 522 to demonstrate that
the petitioner would be entitled to maintenance during the period he is
seeking education.
20.
In view of this, this Court is of the opinion that since the
father i.e. the respondent is well placed financially, it would be
incumbent upon him to bear educational expenses of his son till he is
able to earn his own living or till he completes his education. This is in
fact, a concession to a major son and therefore, the Petition filed by the
Taking overall view of the facts of the case, the Petitioner cannot
21.
Petitioner deserves to be allowed.
22.
claim an amount of Rs. 7 Lakhs for the membership of club.
In the opinion of this Court, taking into consideration the status
of the parties, the Petitioner herein would be entitled to educational
expenses at the rate of Rs. 15,000/ from the date of his application
under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for a
limited period from the date of this order i.e. till October, 2014. The
amount paid so far at the rate of Rs.15,000/ pursuant to the judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench shall be included in the present
case and the amount of Rs.15,000/ granted by this Court in the
present Writ Petition is not in addition to the amount granted by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated
11.10.2013 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. The order
passed by the Family Court Mumbai at Bandra dated 30/8/2011 is
quashed and set aside. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
At this stage, learned Counsel for the respondent seeks stay of
24.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)
the implementation and execution of the order passed in the present
Writ Petition.
In order to give an opportunity to the respondent, order is stayed
25.
for a limited period of four weeks only.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2117 OF 2012
Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat.
... Petitioner.
Versus
... Respondent.
ig
Ajayveer Chapotkat
Ms. Manjari Shah i/b. Mrs. Chitra S. Phadke, advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy, advocate for respondent No. 1.
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J
DATE : 8th April, 2014
For the reasons stated in the Judgment separately, the
following order is passed :
The Petitioner herein would be entitled to educational
expenses at the rate of Rs. 15,000/ from the date of his application
under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for a
limited period from the date of this order i.e. till October, 2014. The
amount paid so far at the rate of Rs.15,000/ pursuant to the judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench shall be included in the present
case and the amount of Rs.15,000/ granted by this Court in the
present Writ Petition is not in addition to the amount granted by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated
11.10.2013 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. The order
2.
passed by the Family Court Mumbai at Bandra dated 30/8/2011 is
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)
quashed and set aside. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
3.
At this stage, learned Counsel for the respondent seeks stay of
the implementation and execution of the order passed in the present
Writ Petition.
4.
In order to give an opportunity to the respondent, order is stayed
for a limited period of four weeks only.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)
Print Page
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2117 OF 2012
[Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat vs. Ajayveer Chapotkat, Civil Writ Petition No. 2117 of 2012, decided on April 8, 2014]
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J
DATE : 8th April, 2014
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned
Counsel for the respondent.
2
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the
parties.
3
The petitioner herein is the son of the respondent No. 1. The
Petition herein takes exception to the order dated 30 th August, 2011
passed by the Family Court. The Petitioner has instituted the Petition
to direct respondent father to pay maintenance even after he has
attained age of majority. During the pendency of the main Petition,
the Constituted Attorney of the respondent father had made an
application for framing preliminary issue regarding maintainability of
Petition, thereby seeking rejection of the Petition under Order 7 Rule
11(d) of Civil Procedure Code. The named Petition is filed under
Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The
Petitioner herein had attained majority on 26 th October, 2008 and the
Petition was filed on 19th November 2008. The Petitioner had
challenged the application seeking framing of preliminary issue. The
Petitioner had contended that it is the obligation of the father to
maintain his son as he is studying and fully dependent upon his
mother. Learned Family Court had observed that the Petitioner has
attained majority and is not entitled to claim maintenance under
Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. It was
observed by the learned Family Court that the advocate representing
the Petitioner as well as respondent had admitted that the Petition has
been filed by the Petitioner after attaining age of majority and as per
subclause 2 of the Section 20 of the Act, the Child is not entitled to
claim maintenance from either of the parents.
The Petitioner submits that in fact, his mother had filed an
application before the Family Court bearing Petition No. A438/1993
praying therein that the marriage between the applicant and the
present respondent be dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section
13(1)(ia) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that the
applicant therein shall be awarded the custody and guardianship of the
minor child Jayvardhan Sinh and that the custody of the minor son
shall vest in her permanently. The prayer was granted by the Family
Court and the decree was drawn on 24th March, 2000. At that stage,
the respondent herein was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/ p.m. to the
mother of the Petitioner towards her maintenance and the respondent
was further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/ p.m. to the present Petitioner
towards maintenance. Thereafter, the mother of the Petitioner had
sought modification of the order by filing Miscellanea Application No.
118 of 2003. She had demonstrated before the Court the contingent
expenditures towards maintenance of her son and had prayed that the
respondent herein be ordered and directed to pay a sum of Rs.
15,000/ p. m. towards maintenance of the minor son and further that
the respondent be ordered and directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7 Lakhs for
the membership of C.C.I. It appears from record that the respondent
On 14th November, 2008 the respondent herein filed Interim
herein was looking after the needs of the son.
Application No. 346 of 2008 in M.A. No. 118 of 2003 seeking
modification of the order of maintenance. The applicant i.e. the
present respondent had specifically stated that the respondent has paid
Rs. 17,91,000/ and was in arrears of Rs. 1,66,000/ as on
16/10/2008. The applicant had filed an undertaking that he would
pay the arrears amount. It was specifically contended that on
26/10/2008 the child Jay i.e. present Petitioner has completed 18
years of age and has become a major and hence, would not be entitled
for any maintenance. He had prayed for modification of the order
dated 24th June, 2004 and had further prayed that the order of
maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/ to the child Jay be set aside.
The mother of the Petitioner had filed a reply to the said application
contending therein that although the child has attained majority, he is
studying in first year junior college at Jai Hind College, Mumbai. He
had attained majority on 26th October, 2008. That he is still a student
and is not independent and capable of looking after himself and
therefore, the order should not be modified. The Marriage Counsellor
had called upon to file a report. She had reported that the total
amount paid by the present respondent was Rs. 16,71,000/. Amount
of Rs. 14,87,000/ was withdrawn from the court. That the respondent
had paid Rs. 1,84,000/ and Rs. 40,000/ by cheque and total amount
paid was Rs. 17,11,000/. The present Petitioner filed Petition No.
176/2008 before the Family Court which is an application under
Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1955 praying
therein that the Petitioner be awarded maintenance even after his
attaining of majority on 26/10/2008.
The respondent had raised a preliminary objection in respect of
maintainability of the Petition under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil
Procedure, Code and therefore had requested the Court to frame the
issue of maintainability of the Petition, as per the provisions of order
14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The preliminary objection was filed
by the Constituted Attorney of the respondent on behalf of the
respondent. In the mean while, Civil Appeal No. 8689 of 2011 has
been filed by the mother of the present Petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex
Court has stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by the
High Court and had directed that the respondent shall pay to the
Petitioner Rs. 10,000/ p.m. by way of permanent alimony with effect
from the date of the Family Court order and this would be in addition
to the amount awarded for the child. It is pertinent to note that before
filing the application seeking leave to appeal the present Petitioner had
attained majority. However, the same was not demonstrated before
the Hon'ble Apex Court and in all probabilities therefore, the Hon'ble
Apex Court had extended the relief in favour of the child i.e. the
present Petitioner. The respondent herein had filed affidavit in reply
before the Hon'ble Apex Court stating therein that in fact, there has
been suppression of facts on behalf of the appellant. It was specifically
contended in paragraph26 of the affidavit that the present Petitioner
had attained majority on 26th October, 2008 and that he has filed an
application under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act before Family Court. It was further demonstrated that the issue of
maintenance payable to the son was not an issue either in the High
Court or in the Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted
interim relief for granting maintenance to the son. It was further
contended that it has foreclosed defence available to the respondent in
the application filed by the son before the Family Court under Section
20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. On 12 th August, 2013
Civil Appeal No. 8689 of 2011 was called out for hearing before the
Hon'ble Apex Court and the Apex Court had granted four weeks' time
In the case of Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v/s. District Judge,
to both the parties to file their respective statement of the case.
Dehradun and ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 3397, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed that under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
Act, 1956 it is the obligation of a person to maintain his unmarried
daughter, if she is unable to maintain herself.
8
It is submitted by the respondent that the Hon'ble Apex Court
was considering the case of an unmarried daughter and the same
cannot be applied to the case of a son. In fact, in the present case, the
respondent has demonstrated before the Apex Court that the mother of
the present Petitioner happens to be a practicing advocate and she has
suppressed the facts before the Court.
Section 20 of the said Act contemplates that a legitimate and
illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his father or mother so
long as the child is minor. Section 21(iv) of the said Act defines
“dependents” “as his or her son or the son of his predeceased son or
the son of a predeceased son of his predeceased son, so long as he is a
minor : provided and to the extent that he is unable to obtain
maintenance, in the case of a grandson from his father's or mother's
estate, and in the case of a greatgrandson, from the estate of his father
or mother or father's father or father's mother.”
In view of this provision, it can be clearly said that the Statute
does not contemplate grant of maintenance to son who has attained
majority.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon
the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rita Dutta and
Anr. v.s. Subhendu Dutta reported in (2005) 6 SCC 619. In the
said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court had directed the father to pay
maintenance to the elder son to the tune of Rs. 3,000/ and Rs. 2,500/
to the younger son. The Counsel placing reliance upon the Judgment
of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited(supra) submits that although the
Statute does not entitle a major son for maintenance, in fact and
circumstances, a son who has attained majority can claim
maintenance. That the Hon’ble Apex Court has also not disturbed
grant of maintenance awarded to the present petitioner.
The learned Counsel further submits that it is the obligation of
the father to maintain his son who is still prosecuting his studies and is
fully dependent and cannot maintain himself. It is true that the ward
of an educated, well placed parent is entitled to prosecute his studies
in order to have better prospects in life. Divorce between the parents
should not disentitle the child from prosecuting his further studies and
making himself capable to earn a decent living for himself. In these
circumstances, the son would be entitled to maintenance so long as he
is prosecuting his education or till he attains the age of 25 years.
13
The Hon'ble Apex Court had carved an exception to the
provisions of Statute in the case of Rita Dutta(supra). In the present
case also it can be said that the Petitioner has made out an exceptional
case. It is demonstrated in the Petition that he has bright career. He
he is studying at Jai Hind college.
14
is prosecuting his education and sports to the best of his capacity and
The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that in fact, the
mother is an advocate and she is also earning and therefore, she
should maintain her son. It is further submitted that the Statute does
not contemplate maintenance to a son who has attained majority. It is
the joint responsibility of the parents to maintain their son as long as
he is studying and just because the parents are divorced and the son
continues to live with his mother, the whole responsibility cannot be
thrown on the frail shoulders of mother.
The learned Counsel for the respondent further submits that the
mother of the present petitioner earns about 10,000/ p.m. as an
advocate and she has suppressed the said fact and therefore, the son
would not be entitled to any maintenance from the father. In the
present day circumstances, Rs. 10,000/ is a meager amount and the
tuition fees are exhorbitant and therefore, it would not be possible for
the mother to pay the tuition fees of her son. On the other hand, the
respondent herein is in fact, an American Citizen and a waste water
analyst working for gain at RCSD1, 4, Route 340, Orangeburg, New
York 10962 U.S.A.
A major son may not be entitled for maintenance under the
Hindu Marriage Act. In the present case, the Petitioner has made out a
specific claim for educational expenses which can be availed by him
after attaining the age of 18 years. The son/claimant would attain
majority as far as age is concerned, however, it would not be the
proper age for becoming economically independent so as to earn his
living. In the given facts of the case, a major son of the welleducated
and economically sound parents can claim educational expenses from
his father or mother irrespective of the fact that he has attained
majority. It is not maintenance in strict sense as contemplated under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or maintenance as
contemplated under Section under Hindu Marriage Act.
17.
Respective Counsel submit that the respondent herein had
preferred an appeal (Family Court Appeal No.147 of 2013)
challenging the judgment and order dated 1.8.2012 passed by
the Judge, Court Room No.3, Family Court, Mumbai, in Petition
No. Civil M.A. 118 of 2003, wherein the maintenance awarded
to the present petitoner was enhanced to Rs.15,000/ from
Rs.5,000/. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench of this
Court (Coram : Smt. V.K.Tahilramani and A.R.Joshi, JJ.). The
said appeal was disposed of by an order dated 11.10.2013. The
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had observed in para 6 as
follows :
In his affidavitinreply, the appellant – father has
“6.
stated about the educational facilities available in U.S. And
particularly in New York where he is residing. He has stated
that the mother should send the child to America to be with
him and he will look after the child and attend to the needs
of the child in America. He has stated in detail in his reply
as to how the child will be benefited if he lives in Manuet in
New York with the appellant. The appellant has not disputed
that there is inflation in India. He has not disputed that the
amounts were spent on medical / orthodontal treatment nor
that the amounts were spent to pay college fees, purchase of
books etc. It is pertinent to note that the appellant – father
ha averred in his reply that he will maintain the child in
America, to give an exposure to various cultures in U.S.
From this, it is seen that he has sufficient funds and sufficient
financial capacity to provide all those facilities in India which
he has promised to give the child in US.”
The Hon'ble Division Bench has further observed that the father
of the present petitioner had been called upon to produce his
incometax assessment. He has not produced the incometax
assessment as according to him, this is “highly official and
personal information which can be construed and used for
illegal and inappropriate purpose”. The respondent herein had
filed salary certificate which showed that his salary was
47,557.74 USD. The Court had observed that the net salary of
the appellant (present respondent) was 47,557.74 USD after
following mandatory taxes and contributions. The Hon'ble
Division Bench has specifically passed an order that the child is
entitled to enhanced maintenance of Rs.15,000/ instead of
Rs.5,000/ per month till the date he attains majority. The said
order was challenged before the Apex Court and the Judgment
of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 11.10.2013 has
been upheld.
18.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed written
submissions and submits that the petitioner is not earning and,
therefore, cannot pay for his educational expenses also. It is
submitted that at present, the petitioner is pursuing a oneyear
course a Masters Degree in Sports Management offered by the
University of Loughborough, U.K. The annual fees to be
incurred on the said course is GBP 13,250/. The petitioner has
obtained loan from his maternal grandfather for payment of the
said fees as he is born in USA and would not be able to obtain
loan from a Nationalized Bank in India. He desires to return the
loan obtained from his grandfather. Hence, this Court is of the
opinion that the present petitioner would be entitled to a
educational expenses of Rs.15,000/ after having attained
majority, but only till he completes his education in Sports
Training. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he
has taken admission for the masters degree in Sports
Management in September, 2013. The duration of the Course is
of one year i.e. till September, 2014. The petitioner shall not
claim any maintenance beyond the period of completion of
education. The educational expenses shall be paid to the
petitioner at the rate of Rs.15,000/ per moth till he completes
the education. The amounts paid pursuant to the order passed
in Family Court Appeal No.147 of 2013 shall be inclusive of the
amount being granted in this petition and the petitioner shall be
entitled to educational expenses of Rs.15,000/ from the date of
19.
his application under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act for a period of one year from the date of this
order.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kirti Malhotra
(Smt) vs. M.K.Malhotra 1995 Supp (3) SCC 522 to demonstrate that
the petitioner would be entitled to maintenance during the period he is
seeking education.
20.
In view of this, this Court is of the opinion that since the
father i.e. the respondent is well placed financially, it would be
incumbent upon him to bear educational expenses of his son till he is
able to earn his own living or till he completes his education. This is in
fact, a concession to a major son and therefore, the Petition filed by the
Taking overall view of the facts of the case, the Petitioner cannot
21.
Petitioner deserves to be allowed.
22.
claim an amount of Rs. 7 Lakhs for the membership of club.
In the opinion of this Court, taking into consideration the status
of the parties, the Petitioner herein would be entitled to educational
expenses at the rate of Rs. 15,000/ from the date of his application
under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for a
limited period from the date of this order i.e. till October, 2014. The
amount paid so far at the rate of Rs.15,000/ pursuant to the judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench shall be included in the present
case and the amount of Rs.15,000/ granted by this Court in the
present Writ Petition is not in addition to the amount granted by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated
11.10.2013 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. The order
passed by the Family Court Mumbai at Bandra dated 30/8/2011 is
quashed and set aside. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
At this stage, learned Counsel for the respondent seeks stay of
24.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)
the implementation and execution of the order passed in the present
Writ Petition.
In order to give an opportunity to the respondent, order is stayed
25.
for a limited period of four weeks only.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2117 OF 2012
Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat.
... Petitioner.
Versus
... Respondent.
ig
Ajayveer Chapotkat
Ms. Manjari Shah i/b. Mrs. Chitra S. Phadke, advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy, advocate for respondent No. 1.
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J
DATE : 8th April, 2014
For the reasons stated in the Judgment separately, the
following order is passed :
The Petitioner herein would be entitled to educational
expenses at the rate of Rs. 15,000/ from the date of his application
under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for a
limited period from the date of this order i.e. till October, 2014. The
amount paid so far at the rate of Rs.15,000/ pursuant to the judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench shall be included in the present
case and the amount of Rs.15,000/ granted by this Court in the
present Writ Petition is not in addition to the amount granted by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated
11.10.2013 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. The order
2.
passed by the Family Court Mumbai at Bandra dated 30/8/2011 is
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)
quashed and set aside. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
3.
At this stage, learned Counsel for the respondent seeks stay of
the implementation and execution of the order passed in the present
Writ Petition.
4.
In order to give an opportunity to the respondent, order is stayed
for a limited period of four weeks only.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)
No comments:
Post a Comment