"Daughters are not a liability", Justice Chandrachud was quick to retort while adding that the advocate should have a good look at Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
"Let her concentrate on the judicial services exam, then she will not be dependent on the father at all. Guide her on how to appear for the judicial exam", the judge said that after noting that Lathika is a lawyer.
The Advocate appearing for Lathika informed that said that she has already given the has already given the exam.
"Is she a Judge?", Justice Chandrachud asked.
"She has cleared the prelims, and the results are awaited", the advocate clarified.
"When are the exams?", he asked. In October, was the reply.
"Ma'am, study hard now. Don't depend on this man. You better study hard and do well for yourself", Justice Chandrachud advised Lathika.
Turning to the father, he added,
"You should be proud of having a daughter like this, who is highly aspirant. You are only giving us complaints about her that she is not talking to me, this, that....."
The Bench then asked if the emotionally distant duo had spoken to each other.
"Did you meet your father? Did you talk to your father? No? Alright, let them talk now", the judge urged.
Hearing this, the advocates prompted the father to move towards his daughter.
In the last 33 years, they have not communicated with each other, Rao's advocate told the court.
"Court ki orders se ithna ho saktha hain", Justice Chandrachud remarked.
"Both the lawyers, take them both to the canteen, please act as our officers now and not as lawyers for the parties", the bench requested, before parting with the matter.
On 5 October 2020, the Supreme Court had directed Rao to pay an amount of Rs 2,50,000 to both, Lathika and her mother within two weeks. But her mother died on September 6, 2021. The grievance of the petitioner was that no amount had been paid towards the arrears of maintenance, i.e., Rs 8,000 per month for Lathika and Rs 400 for her mother.
Rao's advocate told the court that he had duly paid the arrears of maintenance and has placed reliance on the statements of the Union Bank of India.
Noting this inconsistency, the Court had asked Registrar (Judicial) to prepare a factual report after ascertaining the position from the counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent. "The respondent shall provide supporting documents and proof before theRegistrar (Judicial). Likewise, the counsel for the petitioner would be at liberty to produce bank statements of the bank of the second petitioner certifying asto whether the payment has or has not been received. The report of the Registrar (Judicial) be prepared within a period of eightweeks.", the court's earlier order said.
*Names of the parties have been changed to maintain anonymity**
