HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
B.PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
LAZITHA S – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 255/2020
Maintenance - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act - Section 2(b), Section 20(1)(d), Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act - The court interpreted definitions and obligations regarding maintenance, establishing that a male child does not have a right to claim maintenance once they reach the age of majority, contrary to the appellate court's ruling.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a petition under the PWDV Act seeking maintenance among other reliefs. The trial court granted the reliefs, including maintenance for the children. The appellate court modified some aspects but upheld maintenance claims despite the children reaching adulthood, leading to the current revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate court erred in concluding that a male child, upon reaching adulthood, could claim maintenance. It emphasized the definition of 'child' under the PWDV Act and relevant sections of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
Issues: Whether a male child can claim maintenance after attaining the age of majority under the PWDV Act and related laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that based on the statutory definition of 'child' under the PWDV Act and maintenance provisions in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, maintenance claims cease upon reaching adulthood.
Final Decision: The revision petition is allowed, reversing the appellate court's decision regarding maintenance for adult children.
The respondent in M.C. No.17/2013 has filed this revision petition invoking the provisions of Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .
2.Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are his wife and children. In M.C. No.17/2013 which was filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), respondent Nos.1 to 3 sought various reliefs including maintenance. The trial court allowed the petition. Operative part of the order reads as follows:-
3.The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Act. The appellate court confirmed the order granting relief Nos.1, 3 and 5, modified relief No.2 and set aside relief No.4. The appellate court observed in regard to the monthly maintenance allowed in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3, as follows:-
4.Despite receipt of notice, respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not choose to appear before this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5.It is noticed in the operative part of the order of the trial court itself that respondent No.2-the elder child, was aged 12 years and 3rd respondent-younger child, was aged 8 years in 2014.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent attained majority on 23.04.2018 and the 3 rd respondent on 17.05.2022. The learned counsel maintains that the provisions of the PWDV Act, Section 125 of the Code and Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 , cannot be interpreted to the effect that a male child is entitled to claim maintenance even after attaining majority.
Therefore, the view taken by the appellate court that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to get maintenance even beyond their age of majority is wrong.
7.‘Child’ is defined in Section 2 (b) of the PWDV Act. It reads:
8. Section 20 (1)(d) of the PWDV Act enables aggrieved persons to claim maintenance also for the children. (1)(d) reads as follows:
9.The parties to this case are indisputably Hindus. Therefore, the provisions in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act may also be invoked in order for respondent Nos.1 to 3 to claim maintenance. Section 20 governs the obligation of a father
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.