Observing that a Hindu father has a legal and personal accountability to pay for his daughter’s marriage, the Kerala High Courtroom said that he cannot discriminate between a lawful and unlawful child.
The high court was reading a request filed by a woman against an purchase passed with a Family The courtroom. Initially registered before Palakkad Family Court docket, the petitioner had asked the court docket to immediate the surveys takers who she claimed is usually her father to meet her marriage expenses. However , the respondent stated that he was not really married to the petitioner’s mother and thus not liable to pay money for her matrimony. The family members court finally dismissed her petition proclaiming that the girl with earning Rs 12, 500 as rent from her two houses. In her fresh request before the Kerala High The courtroom, the petitioner argued which the family the courtroom was incorrect in ending that she’s not allowed to claim relationship expenses through the respondent.
Quoting Section 20(1) in the Hindu Adoptions and Protection Act, 1956, the courtroom said that a Hindu guy is bound to preserve legitimate and illegitimate children during his / her lifetime. “It was observed that the respondent’s denial of obtaining a marriage with the petitioner’s mother was immaterial, given that Section 20 talks associated with an obligation to take care of his daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate. The respondent was found to be the father of the petitioner by his own eventual admission as well as a DNA test, ” the court docket ruled.
Section 20(3) of the Indio Adoptions and Maintenance Take action, 1956 likewise said that it’s the obligation of a person to maintain his or her older or infirm parent or maybe a daughter that is unmarried stretches in so far as the parent or maybe the unmarried daughter, as the situation may be, struggles to maintain himself or very little out of his or her very own earnings or other real estate.
Proclaiming that Rs 12, 1000 as lease is not really sufficient, the court determined, “A person does not live by breads alone. You will discover other standard necessities in every area of your life. One can consider what sum the petitioner or her mother would have saved after meeting the afternoon to day time expenses. The respondent offers no circumstance that the petitioner or her mother is required or they have got some other source of income. In these circumstances, we now have no reluctance to find which the order with the lower courtroom rejecting the claim of the petitioner in toto is erroneous”.
