A child is entitled to claim maintenance from birth, and both parents' financial responsibilities should be assessed, particularly when one parent is capable of supporting.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran , J.

The appellant is the father of the respondent and he assails the judgment of the learned Family Court, Kollam, in OP (Others) No.1477/2017 dated 30.08.2022.

2. The afore Original Petition was filed by the respondent seeking that the appellant be ordered to pay her monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- from 03.01.2004, to 03.01.2010; at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month from 04.01.2010 to 04.12.2017; and beyond that, at the rate of Rs.25,000/-, until she is married. She also sought Rs.50 lakhs for her marriage expenses.

3. The respondent was only about 13 years old at the time when the Original Petition was filed and we are told that she is today a woman of 21 years in age.

4. The learned Family Court allowed the Original Petition, after evaluating the evidence on record, ordering the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.20 lakhs towards marriage expenses of his daughter; along with Rs.15,000/- as monthly maintenance for a period of three years prior to the date of petition, being 04.12.2017, and thereafter at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month till her marriage or until she gets employment.

5. Smt.K.Latha – appearing for the appellant, argued that the learned Family Court has fixed the afore figures without taking into account the factum of her client suffering from impecuniousness because, his monthly income from a daily wage employment he has with the Fisheries is only to a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, as evident from Ext.B2; while, he has no landed properties or assets in his name. She, however, conceded that the appellant's father had large extents of landed property and that consequent to his death in 2016, he inherited 1/4^th of the same, along with his mother and two sisters; but that he has been incapacitated from dealing with it in any manner since they are all now under legal processes within the ambit of the Kerala Land Reforms Act . She submitted that, therefore, the learned Family Court ought not to have awarded the amounts as it has done now, without adverting to the financial position of her client; and prayed that, therefore, this appeal be allowed and the decree be set aside.

6. Sri.M.P.Ramnath – learned counsel for the respondent, however, vehemently refuted the afore submissions, saying that there is nothing on record – be that in the evidence or in the pleadings – that the properties inherited by the appellant stand burdened with any obligation under the Land Reforms Act. He pointed out that this assertion has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant for the first time now and does not even form part of the pleadings. He supplemented, by saying that, in fact, the “written objections” filed by the appellant before the learned Family Court is to the effect that, though he has inherited large extents of property from his father after his unfortunate demise, he is not obligated to pay any amount as maintenance or marriage expenses to his daughter because she and her mother (his divorced wife) had deserted him much earlier. He argued that, apart from the factum of the above imputation being totally untrue, the only case projected by the appellant is that he is not obligated in law to maintain either his wife or his child. He argued that since this is untenable, the learned Family Court is without error in having rejected the same and in having awarded the amounts, as it has done in the impugned judgment.

7. Sri.M.P.Ramnath, thereafter, submi