Point of law: Father cannot be fastened with the liability to bear the amount spent by the daughter lavishly according to her whims and fancies. Nor can the Court award marriage expenses without any basis.

JUDGMENT :

Kauser Edappagath, J.

The following interesting questions arise for consideration in this matrimonial appeal:

(i) Does father of a child born out of an inter–faith marriage have legal obligation to maintain it in the absence of a statutory stipulation?

(ii) Is unmarried daughter born to an inter–faith couple entitled to marriage expenses from her father?

(iii) If yes, how would the quantum be determined?

2. The appellant is the father of the first respondent. The second respondent is the mother of the first respondent. The appellant and the second respondent married in the year 1987. It was an inter–religion marriage. The appellant is a Hindu and the second respondent is a Muslim. The first respondent was born in their wedlock on 24/12/1990. The materials on record would show that the first respondent was brought up as a Muslim.

3. The first respondent filed the original petition as OP No.540/2010 at the Family Court, Nedumangad (for short, 'the Court below') against the appellant and the second respondent claiming past and future maintenance, educational and marriage expenses. The said original petition was filed invoking the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The second respondent remained absent at the Court below. The appellant alone contested the matter. His liability to pay maintenance, educational and marriage expenses claimed was disputed. He inter alia contended that the petition invoking the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is not maintainable.

4. The first respondent gave evidence as PW1. Exts. A1 to A7 were marked on her side. The appellant was examined as CPW1. Exts. B1 to B3 were marked on his side. The Court below on analysis of evidence found that the first respondent was brought up as a member of Hindu family and inasmuch as the appellant is a Hindu, the original petition filed by the first respondent invoking the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is perfectly maintainable. On merits, the Court below found that the first respondent is entitled to all the reliefs claimed by her from the appellant and the second respondent who are her parents. Accordingly, a decree for Rs.1,08,000/- towards past maintenance, Rs.14,66,860/-towards marriage expenses and Rs.96,000/- towards educational expenses with interest was granted. The said decree and judgment are under challenge in this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides.

6. As stated already, the appellant is a Hindu and the second respondent is a Muslim. No doubt, any child, legitimate or illegitimate, one of whose parents is a Hindu, can maintain an application seeking reliefs under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 if such child is brought up as a Hindu. The Court below found that the first respondent was brought up as a member of Hindu community and, hence, the original petition is maintainable. The said finding, according to us, is contrary to the evidence on record. In the original petition itself, the first respondent has pleaded that when she attained three years old, the appellant left the company of the second respondent and she was under the custody and guardianship of the second respondent and that in the year 1997, the second respondent married another person and she was brought up thereafter by her maternal grand parents. The maternal grand parents of the first respondent are Muslims. The first respondent also gave evidence in tune with the above pleadings. Thus, it is clear that after three years of age, she was not brought up as a Hindu. The first respondent got married to a Muslim on 07/10/2012. She stated in her evidence that her marriage was solemnized according to Muslim rites. Ext. A1 marriage invitation card would also prove this. The evidence on record would show that after three years of age, the first respondent was brought up as a Muslim and not as a Hindu. Hence, the finding of the Court below that the first respondent was bro