Back
High Court Of Delhi
SHYAM CHANDRA PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
RAJESHWARI DEVI - Respondent
Civil 23 of 1996
Decided On : 08/01/2000
Maintenance - Matrimonial Petition - Summary: The court addressed the issue of pendente lite maintenance for a minor child and the cessation of this maintenance upon the child reaching majority. The key legal provision discussed was Sections 24 and 26 of the HM Act, and the court's interpretation influenced the decision to set aside the executing court's order and allow the petition to the extent indicated above.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent made an application for pendente lite maintenance for herself and the minor child during the matrimonial petition proceedings. The petitioner objected to paying arrears of maintenance for the minor child after the child had attained majority and secured employment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the minor child was not entitled to pendente lite maintenance after reaching majority, making the arrears of maintenance unenforceable to that extent. The executing court's order was set aside, allowing the petition to proceed for any further outstanding amount.
Issues: The issue revolved around the payment of arrears of maintenance for the minor child after reaching majority and securing employment, and the executing court's rejection of the petitioner's plea.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the law regarding the entitlement to pendente lite maintenance for a minor child and the cessation of this maintenance upon reaching majority.
Final Decision: The impugned order passed by the executing court was set aside to the extent that arrears of maintenance payable to the minor child after reaching majority were deemed unenforceable. The petition was allowed to proceed for any further outstanding amount.
( 1 ) PETITIONER filed a matrimonial petition under Section 13 of the HM Act for a decree of divorce. In that proceedings respondent made an application under Sections 24 and 26 for pendente lite maintenance to her and to the son born out of wedlock, Saurabh Mani on 12. 2. 1973. Trial court granted Rs. 600. 00 PM to her and Rs. 400. 00 PM to the minor child. Respondent took execution proceedings No. 29/93 and claimed payment of Rs. 3433. 00 as arrears of maintenance. But petitioner took objection to this on the plea that pendente lite maintenance was not payable by him to Saurabh after 12. 2. 1991 when he had become major and had also taken an employment for Rs. 9000. 00 a month. Executing court rejected this plea on the ground he ought to have sought modification of the trial court order.
( 2 ) IT is not disputed that Saurabh was not entitled to pendente lite maintenance after he attained majority on 12. 2. 1991. Therefore, any arrears computed thereafter are not payable by the petitioner and to that extent trial court order becomes un-enforceable. The impugned order passed by the Executing court is set aside to that extent and execution may proceed in case there is any further amount outstanding against petitioner apartfrom the arrears of maintenance payable to Saurabh Mani after 12. 2. 1991. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
