Under Hindu Law, a father has a personal obligation to maintain his minor child, which the courts must uphold despite claims of insufficient income.

JUDGMENT :

JYOTI MULIMANI, J.

Sri. K.N. Mohan., counsel for the appellant has appeared in person.

2. This is an appeal from the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts are these:

The plaintiff - Kumari C.Cheeksha is the daughter of defendant No.3 - Chandrabhanu. Due to difference in opinions and misunderstandings, the father and mother of the plaintiff dissolved their marriage by filing a mutual divorce petition in M.C.No.649/2007. The plaintiff contended that she is studying in a school and participated in the swimming competition by representing the school as well as Karnataka State. However, her father has failed to provide financial help for her development. Therefore, she was constrained to take shelter under the Court of law and filed a suit seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month from her father.

After service of the suit summons, the third defendant appeared through his counsel filed a written statement and denied the plaint averments. However, he admitted the relationship between him and the plaintiff. Among other grounds, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues, and the parties led evidence and exhibited the documents. On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide Judgment dated 23.09.2017 partly decreed the suit and directed the third defendant to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff month by month from the date of suit till the date of her marriage and dismissed the suit against defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5. The third defendant assailed the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.56/2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur. On an appeal, the First Appellate Court vide Judgment dated 26.09.2019 partly allowed the appeal and directed the third defendant to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the plaintiff from the date of suit till her marriage. Hence, the third defendant has filed this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC.

5. Counsel Sri.Mohan.K.N., for the appellant submits that the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are contrary to the law and facts and the evidence available on record.

Next, he submits that both the Courts have erred in directing the appellant to pay monthly maintenance to the respondent without appreciating the material evidence on record.

A further submission is made that the Courts have erred in decreeing the suit by overlooking the evidence of PW1 that she is having sufficient means to maintain the minor daughter.

Counsel vehemently contended that the appellant is not having capacity to pay amount towards the maintenance as he has no such income.

Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the findings recorded by both the Courts lack judicial reasoning. Therefore, he prayed that this Second Appeal may be admitted by framing substantial questions of law.

Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers with care.

6. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the daughter of third defendant. Contending that her father failed to provide financial help for her development, the plaintiff sought the aid of the Court for maintenance. The third defendant contended that he has no visitation rights of his minor child and his wife had admitted in the M.C proceedings that she will not claim maintenance amount for herself and also for the daughter. Hence, the question of maintaining the minor daughter does not arise. In this Court also, he has adhered to the said con