Law Does Not Entitle Male Child Who Has Attained Majority To Claim Maintenance From Father: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that a male child who has attained majority cannot claim maintenance from their father as per the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 of CrPC and Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar stated, "Thus, none of the said provisions entitles a male child who has attained majority to claim maintenance from his father.”
The revision petitioner is the husband and the wife and two sons are the respondents. The trial court in 2014 ordered maintenance amount to be paid to the sons who were aged 8 and 12 years old under Section 20 (1) (d) of the DV Act. Section 20 provides for monetary relief to the aggrieved person and her children.
In appeal, the Appellate Court noted that there is no restriction upon the payment of maintenance to the sons even after attainment of the age of majority. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Court that his sons were entitled to get maintenance even beyond their age of majority.
The petitioner contended that his sons are now aged 18 and 22. He stated that both his sons have attained majority and were not entitled to maintenance. He stated that provisions of the DV Act, Section 125 of CrPC and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act cannot be interpreted to permit payment of maintenance to a male child after attaining majority.
Referring to Section 2 (b) of the DV Act, the Court stated that the term child means below 18 years of age. The Court noted that monthly maintenance could be ordered to the minor child under Section 20 (1) (d) of the DV Act. The provision provides that maintenance orders under the DV Act could be ordered either under Section 125 of CrPC or Section 20 (3) of the Maintenance Act.
Therefore, the Court stated that a person who ceases to be a child upon attaining majority is not entitled to claim maintenance as per the provisions of the DV Act. It said, “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.”
The Court noted that a minor child, either male or female is entitled to maintenance as per Section 125 of CrPC.
It stated that since the parties were Hindus, the children were also entitled to maintenance as per Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act provides that a major unmarried daughter who is unable to maintain herself is entitled to maintenance.
The Court thus allowed the revision petition and stated that the obligation of the petitioner was only to pay maintenance to his sons till attaining the age of majority.
Counsel for Revision Petitioner: Advocate T S Maya (Thiyadil), K A Sunitha
Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor Seena C
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 486
Case Title: B Prakash v Lazitha
Case Number: Crl. Rev. Pet. No.255 of 2020