A mother is legally required to maintain her unmarried daughter if the daughter cannot support herself, regardless of the father's situation.

JUDGMENT

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

The claim of a mentally challenged daughter for maintenance from the mother is declined. The daughter is in appeal against that judgment under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

2. The appellant is the daughter of the respondent.

The appellant is represented by her father, since she is mentally challenged and incapable, by reason of such mental infirmity, to prosecute the case on her own. Marriage between the father of the appellant and the respondent was separated on 11.06.2003 by a decree of divorce on mutual consent. In terms of the agreement between them, custody of the mentally challenged daughter was entrusted to the father. The appellant attained majority, but she continues to be mentally challenged and remain unmarried. Stating that the father was unable to meet the expenditure of the appellant, who requires periodical treatment, she had filed O.P.No.635 of 2016 before the Family Court, Palakkad. An amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was claimed towards maintenance from the respondent. The respondent opposed the claim. She filed a counter statement. She does not deny the mental infirmity of the appellant. She, however, contended that she did not have any income. She remarried in 2013 and lives along with her present husband. The father of the appellant also remarried. She further contended that only to cause inconvenience to her family life, the father of the appellant filed the original petition and it lacks bona fides.

3. PW1 the father of the appellant and RW1 were examined. Exts.A1 to A6 were received in evidence as well. After hearing both sides, the Family Court took the view that since the marriage of the parents of the appellant was separated as early as on 11.06.2003 and the claim for maintenance has been raised only in the year 2016, it is highly belated. Finding further that there is no justification for such a long delay, the claim was declined.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that father of the appellant does not have enough income to meet the expenses of the appellant and the respondent, being the mother, has equal responsibility, but she has not been making any payment towards maintenance. It is true that till 2016 no claim for maintenance was made, but that does not preclude the appellant from claiming maintenance, which is her legal right.

6. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is that for more than one reason the appellant is disentitled from claiming maintenance. The father of the appellant agreed to maintain the appellant and therefore he is estopped from claiming maintenance. It is not proved that the respondent has any income. She is living along with her present husband and she does not have any income. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot have a claim for maintenance against the respondent.

7. The fact that the appellant is the daughter of the respondent is not a disputed fact. Section 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 deals with the liability of a person, who is a Hindu, to maintain his/her children and aged parents. Sub-section (3) of Section 20 reads,- “20. Maintenance of children and aged parents.- xx xx (3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends insofar as the parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property.”

8. The provision is clear that the mother also has the obligation to maintain her unmarried daughter as long as she is unable to maintain herself, out of her own earnings or other property. Whether or not the father of such unmarried daughter has income is not a criteria for deciding the obligation of the mother under Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.

9. The claim is by a daug