Whether major daughter can seek maintenance U/S125 of CRPC from father through her mother?

 The learned counsel for the respondent had
vehemently argued that on attaining majority the daughter can
herself file proceeding and would step into the witness box to
discharge the said burden and the mother is not competent to do so
on behalf of the daughter. The said argument appears to be
misconceived as in the present case the mother who moved an
interim application claiming maintenance has prayed that an amount
of Rs.15000/per
month be granted to her as an interim
maintenance so as to enable her to meet the expenses of the
daughter's education. She has made it clear in the application that

her income is insufficient to meet her personal medical and other
expenses as well as the daughter's expenses and she has approached
the Court seeking maintenance for herself so that she can arrange for
daughter's higher education and repaying loans. Once the learned
counsel for the respondent has conceded to the position of law that
major unmarried daughter is entitled to claim maintenance from the
father, then, hyper technical objection that it is she, who should enter
the witness box and discharge the burden of proving neglect or
refusal to maintain and to prove her dependency is to be discharged
by her cannot be sustained. Even if the daughter would have filed the
proceedings, the parameters for deciding her entitlement would have
been the neglect and refusal of the father to pay for the educational
expenses and other expenses of the daughter. The daughter can be a
competent person to file her own application claiming maintenance.
However, in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceeding, no fault
can be found in the application preferred by the mother claiming
maintenance with a view to meet the expenses of the daughter, since
wife has not claimed maintenance for herself and she has not denied

the factum of her employment. In such circumstances, it appears that
the stand taken by the respondent is a hyper technical plea and the
respondent cannot be absolved of his liability to meet the necessary
expenses of his major unmarried daughter who is persuading her
education and she needs cannot be met by the petitioner wife who
has her limited source of earning. Once this principle is clear, then,
the technical objection cannot come in the way of granting
substantive relief in favour of the petitioner to claim an amount of
maintenance for meeting the expenses of her daughter's education.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2872 of 2017

Agnes Lily Irudaya Vs  Irudaya Kani Arsan

CORAM : SMT.BHARATI H.DANGRE, J.

Pronounced on :6th April, 2018.

Print Page

Whether daughter can be denied right in ancestral property if preliminary decree is passed?

...A partition of the joint Hindu family can be effected by various modes, viz., by a family settlement, by a registered instrument of partition, by oral arrangement by the parties, or by a decree of the court. When a suit for partition is filed in a court, a preliminary decree is passed determining shares of the members of the family. The final decree follows, thereafter, allotting specific properties and directing the partition of the immovable properties by metes and bounds. Unless and until the final decree is passed and the allottees of the shares are put in possession of the respective property, the partition is not complete. The preliminary decree which determines shares does not bring about the final partition. For, pending the final decree the shares themselves are liable to be varied on account of the intervening events. In the instant case, there is no dispute that only a preliminary decree had been passed and before the final decree could be passed the amending Act came into force as a result of which Clause (ii) of Section 29A of the Act became applicable. This intervening event which gave shares to Respondents 2 to 5 had the effect of varying shares of the parties like any supervening development. Since the legislation is beneficial and placed on the statute book with the avowed object of benefitting women which is a vulnerable section of the society in all its stratas, it is necessary to give a liberal effect to it. For this reason also, we cannot equate the concept of partition that the legislature has in mind in the present case with a mere severance of the status of the joint family which can be effected by an expression of a mere desire by a family member to do so. The partition that the legislature has in mind in the present case is undoubtedly a partition completed in all respects and which has brought about an irreversible situation. A preliminary decree which merely declares shares which are themselves liable to change does not bring about any irreversible situation. Hence, we are of the view that unless a partition of the property is effected by metes and bounds, the daughters cannot be deprived of the benefits conferred by the Act. Any other view is likely to deprive a vast section of the fair sex of the benefits conferred by the amendment. Spurious family settlements, instruments of partitions not to speak of oral partitions will spring up and nullify the beneficial effect of the legislation depriving a vast section of women of its benefits.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8538 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9586 of 2010)

Decided On: 12.10.2011

Ganduri Koteshwaramma and Anr. Vs. Chakiri Yanadi and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.M. Lodha and J.S. Khehar, JJ.

Citation: (2011) 9 SCC 788 19

Print Page

Whether father is liable to maintain unmarried adult daughter?

A Bombay High Court Bench comprising of Justice A.P. Bhangale and Justice A.S. Oka has upheld the constitutional validity of subsection 3 of section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

It is also held that the applicability of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not depend upon the nationality of the child or domicile of the child. If both the parents of the child are either Hindu or Buddhist or Jain or Sikh by religion, the said Act becomes applicable to such children.

The Petitioner, Mr. Ramesh Gajanan Rege had challenged constitutional validity of subsection 3 of section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

The respondent daughter had filed a petition under Section 20 of the Act before the Family Court at Pune in 2005. She was 16 years old then. The petition had prayed for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.50, 000/per month and for issuing a direction to provide a residence to her.

The petitioner father had contended that the daughter is a British citizen and she is not domiciled in India. Apart from granting injunction against the petitioner, the Judge of the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay interim alimony of Rs.10, 000 to the daughter.

The Petitioner had then challenged the validity of Section 20 (3) of the Act, contending that it is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

This was because sub section 3 places an obligation over a person to maintain his daughter who is unmarried when she is unable to maintain herself. He thereby submitted that there is no reason to discriminate between a son and a daughter. He urged that if a father is under no obligation to maintain unmarried son after he attains majority, there is no reason to grant such a benefit to the unmarried daughter. His submission was that there is no justifiable reason to protect only a daughter. He, therefore, urged that the provision of subsection (3) is arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

He urged that the said provision is also violative of Article 15 which prohibits discrimination on the ground of sex. He urged that it is unjust to put responsibility on the parents to maintain an unmarried daughter even after she attains majority as the daughter may choose to remain unmarried forever.

He also submitted that his daughter is not domiciled in India and is not a citizen of India. Therefore, the Act won’t be applicable to her. Rejecting this contention, the Court observed, “The question of applicability of the said Act is different from the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the proceedings under the said Act.”

Dismissing the contention as to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Court observed, “Sub-section (3) operates independently of subsection (2). It seeks to protect an unmarried daughter even after she attains majority. A person is under an obligation to maintain his or her daughter who is unmarried and who is unable to maintain herself. The class of unmarried sons who have attained majority is completely different from the class of unmarried daughters who have attained majority. The reason being the peculiar position of a daughter and especially an unmarried daughter in Hindu society. Therefore, the argument that two equals are being treated as unequals is not at all acceptable and therefore, Article 14 will have no application.”

The Court also rejected the contention of violation of Article 15 of the Constitution of India, in view of clause (3) of Article 15.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10312 OF 2014
Ramesh Gajanan Rege
vs.
Gauri Ramesh Rege
Union of India 


CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
   A.P.BHANGALE, JJ.
         DATE  : MARCH 18, 2015

Print Page