Thus, if a child whether legitimate or illegitimate has
attained majority as per the aforesaid Act of 1875 and is not suffering by any
physical or mental abnormality or injury, thereby unable to maintain itself,
would not be entitled to receive maintenance u/S. 125, the Court said.
High Court of Sikkim has set aside an order by Family court
which had enhanced maintenance to ‘son’ who had attained majority. On the
Revision petition filed by ‘Father’, Chief Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha, held that
provisions of Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure are always subject to
the provisions of Section 125 and as the major son, ceases to be entitled to
receive maintenance under section 125, he cannot seek an order of enhancement
under section 127.
Facts and contentions
In this case, The Family Court, had enhanced the aforesaid
amount of monthly maintenance from Rs.6,500- to Rs.30,000 per month. It had
also granted five lakhs in favour of the wife (mother) towards the amount
incurred by her upon admission and prosecution of studies of the Second
Respondent in an Engineering College at Bengaluru. Father, aggrieved by this
order, filed this Revision petition.
The petitioner-husband contended that since his son had
turned major, he is not entitled to receive maintenance under section 125 CrPC
and hence no enhancement under 127 CrPC. was possible. Relying on a Bombay High
Court ruling in Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat vs. Ajayveer Chapotkat, the
respondent-wife contended that the Family Court was right in granting the said
amount because it is the moral of the father to bear the expenses, which are
incurred towards education of his son and the fact that he has turned major
does not make any difference, as Section 125 and Section 127 of the CrPC. are
two different provisions providing independent jurisdiction.
Section 127 not
independent
The High court said that the provisions of Section 127 are
not independent as they provide for a consequential order upon proof of a
change in the circumstances of any person receiving maintenance or directed to
pay maintenance under Section 125. The change in the circumstances of the
concerned person, therefore, has to be judged in the light of the provisions of
Section 125 and a Court, considering an application for alteration u/S. 127,
cannot say goby to the provisions of Section 125, which are basic provisions
for grant of maintenance to the person concerned, the Court said.
The court further said that if a child has attained majority
and is not suffering by any physical or mental abnormality or injury, thereby
unable to maintain itself, would not be entitled to receive maintenance under
section 125 and hence enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 is also
liable to be set aside.
Bombay HC ruling
distinguished
The court said that the Bombay HC judgement is
distinguishable from this case, as it was a civil dispute and it was the Writ
Court which has held that the major son can avail educational expenses from his
father.The court added that, in that case, it was not maintenance in strict
sense as contemplated under section 125 CrPC.
In fact, Division bench of Bombay High Court, relying on the
Apex Court decision in Rita Dutta and Anr. v.s. Subhendu Dutta(2005) 6 SCC 619,
had ruled that, major son of the well-educated and economically sound parents
can claim educational expenses from his father or mother irrespective of the
fact that he has attained majority.
Read the Judgment here.
Great post! The explanation of cafeteria plan eligibility is clear and concise. It's important for businesses to understand the advantages of offering flexible benefits. This information is crucial for ensuring compliance with section 125 payroll regulations. Keep up the great work!
ReplyDeleteGreat insights on legal maintenance under Section 125 . Interestingly, Section 125 tax in the U.S. also supports financial well-being, offering pre-tax benefits through employer-sponsored plans.
ReplyDelete