Balbir Singh vs Hardeep Singh (1976 CriLJ 1136)
In this landmark judgement the Hon’ble High Court had noted a few pointers pertaining to child maintenance and child support:
- If the child was living with the mother who was its natural guardian, the father is bound to maintain it and it is not open to him to impose a condition that the child must live with him.
- Even in a case where the father is the natural guardian, but the child is in the custody of the mother, father’s obligation to maintain the child subsists and he cannot impose a condition requiring the child to come and live with him in case the child has not attained the age of discretion or is not living with the mother of its free will or volition.
- In such a case, in order to escape his liability to pay maintenance allowance, the father must obtain the custody of the child from the proper Court, but till the custody is obtained, the child must be maintained wherever it is.
- Father’s liability to maintain the child does not cease merely because the child has attained the age of discretion but is living with the mother on account of natural love and affection or attachment with her. Till the father gets the custody of the child, it can successfully claim maintenance.
“For the reasons indicated above, We find that the minors in this case are entitled to claim maintenance from their father even if their custody is with the mother, as the father had failed to obtain their custody from the guardian Court.”
V. Kameswaramma vs V. Raghu Ramulu (1982 2 AP LJ 44 SN)
Though Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not expressly prohibit the parents to give maintenance, but no obligation has been casted upon a Hindu to maintain the children when they attain majority, and Section 20 of the Act can be considered as a bar to claim the maintenance as of right by a child who has attained the majority. In view of the same, the inherent power of the Court cannot be exercised to get over the bar contained in Section 20.
Padmja Sharma vs Ratan Lal Sharma (2000 (2) SCR 621)
Under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, both a Hindu divorcee father and a Hindu divorcee earning mother are obliged to contribute for the maintenance of their children. The father cannot be held exclusively responsible to maintain his children regardless of the mother being affluent.
It was further held that a Hindu is bound, during his or her lifetime, to maintain his or her children. A minor child so long as he is a minor can claim maintenance from both his or her father or mother. It is as much the obligation of the father to maintain a minor child as that of the mother. The Court reiterated that it was not the law that however affluent the mother may be, that it was the sole obligation only of the father to maintain the minor.
Noor Saba Khatoon vs Mohd. Quasim (Crl.A. No. -001197/ 1995)
The benefit under Section 125 of CrPC shall be available to all children irrespective of their religion. The right under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 is that of the mother to claim for maintenance of her children for a period of two years from their date of birth, and such shall be distinct and independent of the right to maintenance under CrPC to minor children who are not able to maintain themselves. Thus, maintenance under CrPC & 1986 Act run parallel i.e., Muslim children are entitled to maintenance under CrPC.
Kusum vs Krishnaji (2008 (2) BomCR 24, 2008 (2) MhLj 314)
Every father shall be under the obligation to maintain his daughters and even to get them married under the statute. The very obligation to maintain his daughter and get her married is said to be personal in character and shall arise from the very existence of the relationship between a father and a daughter. Even if a father lives separately from his wife, he cannot escape the liability to maintain his daughters. The law envisages that a father shall be legally bound to make provision for the marriage expenses of the daughters as a part of maintenance. Therefore, if the wife of such a person has spent for the performance of the marriage of their daughter, the husband would certainly be held liable to reimburse the wife for bearing such expenses. He cannot escape his liability in any case.