When married working daughter is liable to pay maintenance to parents?
Committee, submission is being advanced that option is left with the
parents to choose the son or daughter against whom claim u/s. 125
Cr.P.C. Could be made as also held by the learned single Judge of the
Gowahati High Court.
With due respect, I am unable to agree with the view taken
by the learned single Judge of the Gowahati High Court that there is
option available to the parents. The first reason is that though the Joint
Committee in paragraph 5 recommended that if there are two more
children the parents may seek remedy against any one or more of them,
the same appear to have not been accepted by the Parliament in its
infinite wisdom, and that is why the same is not inserted in the
provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. It thus remained only a recommendation
and did not crystallize into law. Insofar as the present case is
concerned, what is seen is that the applicant has prima facie shown that
Rajani, the married daughter and Chandan, the younger son of the
respondents have been earning lordly sums by way of income and
because of the dispute with the eldest son applicantVasant and his wife,
the parents have sought maintenance from him only, without joining
the married daughterRajani and younger sonChandan to the
proceeding. In my opinion, allowing an option for the parents to choose
any of them would be unjust and onerous only on one of the children
particularly when others are also earning that too handsomely. I hasten
to clarify that I have neither recorded any finding nor any inference
or conclusion which would affect any of the parties on merits of the
dispute since I have already said that this is my prima facie opinion
that Rajani and Chandan are having sufficient means to maintain their
parents and they should also have been asked to participate in the
proceedings in question to place their side before the Family Court,
with pleadings and evidences from all angles. But to say that they
were not necessary parties because of the available option to the
parents, would be doing severe injustice to only one sonVasant, the
revisionapplicant. It will have to be further clarified that the only
question decided by me is that they were the necessary parties to the
Application along with applicantVasant and all of them are free to plead
and prove before the Family Court as to the merits of the Application
and claim against them for maintenance, about they having or not
having sufficient means or neglect or refusal. I therefore, hold that the
married daughterRajani and the younger son Chandan are necessary
parties to the Application and answer the question accordingly.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 172/2014
Vasant s/o Govindrao Naik
v e r s u s
1) Govindrao Upasrao Naik
Aged 64 years, occu: Nil.
2) Sou. Mankarnabai w/o Govind Naik
Amravati, Tah.& Dist.Amravati. .. ...RESPONDENTS
.
CORAM : A.B.CHAUDHARI, J.
DATED : 2nd February, 2016
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/03/when-married-working-daughter-is-liable.html
