Major Child Entitled To Maintenance Under Hindu Marriage Act Till He Is Pursuing Education And Not Financially Independent: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a child is entitled to maintenance under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, till the time he is pursuing his education and does not become financially independent.“In our considered view, a child who is pursuing his education would be entitled to maintenance under Section 26 of the HMA even after he attains the age of majority, till the time he...
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a child is entitled to maintenance under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, till the time he is pursuing his education and does not become financially independent.
“In our considered view, a child who is pursuing his education would be entitled to maintenance under Section 26 of the HMA even after he attains the age of majority, till the time he is pursuing his education and is not financially independent,” a division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal said.
The court said that the intent of Section 26 of the HMA is to provide for maintenance for children's education, adding that it is a matter of common knowledge that normally education of the child does not get over upon the child attaining the age of 18 years.
“In fact, it can safely be concluded that, in today's competitive world, gainful employment may be feasible only after the child has pursued education beyond 18 years of age. It is in this context that Section 26 of the HMA provides that the Court may pass orders with respect to 'education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible'. Therefore, the scope of education in Section 26 of the HMA cannot be restricted only till the time the child attains the age of 18 years,” it said.
The court was deciding cross appeals filed by a husband and wife challenging a family court order directing him to pay Rs. 1,15,000 per month as pendente lite maintenance to her and their son from the date of filing the application for enhancement of maintenance till the date when the divorce petition was withdrawn by him.
The family court had also directed the husband to pay Rs.35,000 per month to the son July 2016 till the time he attains 26 years of age or becomes financially independent, whichever is earlier.
The husband contended that once the main divorce petition was withdrawn by him, the Family Court became “Functus Officio” and could not have granted any relief in applications filed by the wife for enhanced maintenance.
Rejecting the argument, the bench said Family Court does not become functus officio after withdrawal of the divorce petition and it can decide applications filed under Sections 24 and 26 of the HMA even after the said withdrawal.
Furthermore, the bench also concluded that the husband had grossly concealed his real income as well as his movable and immovable assets in order to avoid paying the rightful amount of maintenance to the wife.
“Taking a holistic view, in our considered view, the amounts claimed by the Wife in her enhancement application totalling Rs.1,45,000/- per month seems to be just and reasonable taking into account the financial position of the Husband and the fact that the Wife is unemployed,” the court said.
Title: A v. B
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 868