Back
High Court Of Delhi
SHYAM CHANDRA PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
RAJESHWARI DEVI - Respondent
Civil 23 of 1996
Decided On : 08/30/2000
Pendente Lite Maintenance - Matrimonial Petition - The court set aside the impugned order passed by the Executing Court to the extent that arrears of maintenance payable to the son after he attained majority are not enforceable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a matrimonial petition for a decree of divorce. The respondent made an application for pendente lite maintenance for herself and the minor child. The petitioner objected to paying maintenance to the son after he attained majority and had employment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the son was not entitled to pendente lite maintenance after attaining majority, and therefore, any arrears computed thereafter are not payable by the petitioner. The impugned order passed by the Executing Court was set aside to that extent.
Issues: Dispute over the payment of pendente lite maintenance to the son after he attained majority.
Ratio Decidendi: Pendente lite maintenance is not payable to a child after attaining majority, and any arrears computed thereafter are not enforceable against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed to the extent indicated above, and the impugned order passed by the Executing Court was set aside to the extent that arrears of maintenance payable to the son after he attained majority are not enforceable.
( 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 bom out of wedlock, Saurabh Mani on 12. 2. 1973. Trial Court granted Rs. 600. 00 p. m. to her and Rs. 400. 00 p. m. 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. 9,000. 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 unenforceable. 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 apart from the arrears of maintenance payable to saurabh Mani after 12. 2. 1991. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition allowed accordingly.
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
