Father Not Obligated To Pay Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act To Son Who Has Attained Majority: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court has held that the father is not obligated to pay maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘PWDV Act’) to the son who has attained majority.
The Bench of Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed, “The appellate court, therefore, went wrong in observing that under Section 20 of the PWDV Act, a child is entitled to claim maintenance even after attaining majority. While observing so, the appellate court did not advert to the definition of the child in Section 2(b) of the PWDV Act. When Section 20(1)(d) enables only children to claim maintenance, the said provision certainly is controlled by a definition contained in Section 2(b) of the PWDV Act. Therefore, the said observation of the appellate court is against the law and is liable to be reversed. Ergo, I hold that the obligation of the petitioner to pay maintenance to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is still their attaining majority.”
Advocate TS Maya appeared for the Revision Petitioner whereas Public Prosecutor Seena C appeared for the Respondent.
The Revisionist-Husband filed a revision petition against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case under Section 12 of the PWDV Act. The Respondents were the wife and the children of the Revisionist, who sought various reliefs including maintenance. The Sessions Court took the view that the children of the Revisionist were entitled to maintenance even after attaining the majority.
The Revisionist submitted that the provisions of the PWDV Act, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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.
“Section 125 of the Code is also clear enough to indicate that a minor child, whether male or female, alone is entitled to claim maintenance. In Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, there is no differential treatment inasmuch as a male child is concerned. Of course, under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, a daughter who is unmarried or is enable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property has the right to claim maintenance from her father. Thus, none of the said provisions entitles a male child who has attained majority to claim maintenance from his father.”, the Court said.
Accordingly, the Revision Petition was allowed.
Cause Title: B Prakash v. Lazitha S and Ors. (Neutral Citation:2024:KER:56927)
Appearances:
Revision Petitioner: Advocates TS Maya and KA Sunitha
Respondents: Public Prosecutor Seena C
