Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
News, Top Stories

Karnataka High Court: Under Section 125 CrPC a father is liable to pay the maintenance to his minor son whether he is employed or not [READ ORDER]

“A Hindu is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife, his minor sons, his unmarried daughters and his aged parents, whether he possesses any property or not”. – Karnataka High Court

By: Anish Khondo, 5th Year Law Student at Christ University, Bangalore.

Single-judge Bench of Justice Jyothi Mulimani replied to a question: whether father that is working as collie and hence, he is not able to pay maintenance is acceptable? The judge replied that the father cannot shirk his responsibility from maintaining his minor son under the garb of doing the job of a Coolie.

“factors like unemployment, earning a meager income can’t be an excuse for not maintaining wife and children. He cannot shirk his responsibility from maintaining the family, in particular, his minor son under the garb of doing a coolie job”.

The petitioner here is the father who had applied in the high court of Karnataka claiming that the father is unable to provide maintenance as given order by the “family court” because the petitioner has been working as Coolie and hence, he is unable to pay maintenance.

Also, previously in the family court petitioner’s advocate Shri. K. Prasanna Shetty had submitted that the “petitioner has attained the age of majority and hence, respondent is not liable to pay any maintenance to him”. 

In this regard, the learnt judge mentioned that the claim for maintenance was made in the year 2013 when his son was in 8th standard and order was given in 2014 if the father would have followed the order given by the family court then “his own son would have used the said amount for his own education and had come up in his life holding a better position in the society”.

The court after denying the petitioner’s statement also replied that “It is perhaps well to observe that the power to make an order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is discretionary”, and also that exercising its revisional powers should not interfere “with the discretion of a Judge acting within his jurisdiction unless the Court is clearly satisfied that he was wrong”. 

Lastly, the learn judge finding no merit in the contentions made by the petitioner replied that it no reason to interfere with previous Judge’s order and ordered that the respondent is directed to pay the maintenance to his minor son as ordered by the Family court till the age of his attaining the majority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Privacy Settings
We use cookies to enhance your experience while using our website. If you are using our Services via a browser you can restrict, block or remove cookies through your web browser settings. We also use content and scripts from third parties that may use tracking technologies. You can selectively provide your consent below to allow such third party embeds. For complete information about the cookies we use, data we collect and how we process them, please check our Privacy Policy
Youtube
Consent to display content from Youtube
Vimeo
Consent to display content from Vimeo
Google Maps
Consent to display content from Google
Spotify
Consent to display content from Spotify
Sound Cloud
Consent to display content from Sound
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages