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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more