Skip to main content

Maintance of progeny after attaining adulthood - Bombay HC

Allowing a petition, a division bench comprising of Sadhna S. Jadhav, J held that a son is entitled to maintenance from his father even after attaining the age of maturity. In the present case, the petitioner's parents were divorced and permanent custody of the child was given to the mother. The petitioner had filed the application on the grounds that it is the obligation of the father to maintain him as he is studying and fully dependent upon his mother. The Counsel for the petitioner had argued that divorce between the parents should not disentitle the child from pursuing his further studies and making himself capable to earn a decent living. The Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kirti Malhotra vs. M.K. Malhotra 1995 Supp (3) SCC 522 to demonstrate that the petitioner would be entitled to maintenance during the period he is seeking education. The father opposed the application on the ground that as the son had attained majority age he is no more liable to pay maintenance to him. The Court after going through the judgments and arguments placed before it ruled that major son of the well-educated and economically sound parents can claim educational expenses from his father or mother irrespective of the fact that he has attained majority [Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat vs. Ajayveer Chapotkat, Civil Writ Petition No. 2117 of 2012, decided on April 8, 2014]

Article referred: https://www.facebook.com/Supremecourtcases

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more